Rock Pods L L C v. Rockcrusher L L C et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM RULING Remanding this matter, by separate judgment, to the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 11/24/14. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT COURT
MONROE DIVISION
ROCK PODS, L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1150

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT. G. JAMES

ROCKCRUSHER, L.L.C., ET. AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES

MEMORANDUM RULING
Defendants Grant Shirley and Rockcrusher, LLC removed this matter to federal court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction on June 11, 2014. [doc. # 1]. On November 3, 2014, the Court
recognized, however, that Defendants failed to identify the members and citizenship of
Defendant Rockcrusher, LLC and Plaintiff Rock Pods, LLC. [doc. # 31, p. 2]. As to
Rockcrusher, LLC, Defendants only stated that it is “incorporated and having its principal place
of business in Mahoning County, Ohio.” [doc. # 1, p. 2]. As to Plaintiff Rock Pods, LLC,
Defendants only stated that it is authorized to do business in Louisiana and its “principal place of
business is located in Ouachita parish . . . .” Id.1
Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants leave to amend the deficient jurisdictional
allegations.2 [doc. # 31]. The Court cautioned that if Defendants failed to redress the deficient
allegations within seven days, the Court would remand the matter. Id. at 2.
Federal courts are obliged to examine the basis for the exercise of federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Smith v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 172 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1999). A lack of subject

1

Plaintiff’s Corporate Disclosure Statement lists its members, but it does not list the
members’ citizenship. [doc. # 12].
2

For purposes of diversity, “[a]ll plaintiffs must be diverse in citizenship from all
defendants” and the parties’ citizenship must be “distinctly and affirmatively alleged.” Farrell
Const. Co. v. Jefferson Parish, La., 896 F.2d 136, 139-40 (5th Cir. 1990); Getty Oil, Div. Of
Texaco v. Ins. Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).

matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332,
336 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, a court must raise the issue sua sponte if it discovers it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that, “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.”

Here, more than seven days have passed and Defendants have yet to file an amended
notice of removal or to seek an extension of time in which to do so. Thus, the case shall be
REMANDED, by separate judgment, to the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita, State of Louisiana.3
In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 24th day of November, 2014.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, [doc. # 10],
does not preclude remand. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 587 (1999)
(holding that when subject matter jurisdiction involves no “arduous inquiry,” expedition and
federalism concerns “impel the federal court to dispose of that issue first.”).
2