O'Neal et al v. Wilshire Insurance Co et al
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 8/28/2017. (crt,Tice, Y)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STACY O’NEAL, et al.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00870
COMPANY, et al.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW BRIEFING ORDER
Before the Court is a Complaint removed from a Louisiana state court by
Defendant Wilshire Insurance Company (Doc. 1). The other Defendants consented to
removal (Doc. 1-9).
Defendant premises federal jurisdiction on diversity of
The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This duty persists throughout all
phases of the litigation, even after trial and the entry of final judgment. See id. at
The diversity statute – 28 U.S.C. § 1332 – is satisfied upon a showing of: (1)
diversity of citizenship between the parties; and (2) an amount in controversy in
excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. “Complete diversity requires that
all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all
persons on the other side.” Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079
(5th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Further, “when jurisdiction
depends on citizenship, citizenship must be distinctly and affirmatively alleged.”
Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th
In cases removed from state court, diversity of citizenship must exist
both at the time of filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court.
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1996).
The citizenship of an individual is his or her domicile, meaning the place where
an individual resides and intends to remain. See Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran
Good Samaritan Soc., 334 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 2003). A corporation shall be
deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business. See Tewari De-Ox Systems, Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen, L.L.C., 757
F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2014). The citizenship of a general partnership depends on
that of all partners. See Int'l Paper Co. v. Denkmann Associates, 116 F.3d 134, 135,
137 (5th Cir. 1997). The citizenship of a limited liability company (“L.L.C.”), a limited
partnership, or other unincorporated association or entity is determined by the
citizenship of all its members. See Harvey, 542 F.3d at 1079-80.
Wilshire Insurance Company makes the following representations as to the
citizenship of all parties (Doc. 1):
Plaintiffs Stacy and Amanda O’Neal, and their minor children, are citizens of
Defendant Optimum Agriculture, L.L.C. is a limited liability company that had
one member, Agri Company, a corporation incorporated in Arkansas with its
principal place of business in Arkansas. Therefore, Optimum Agriculture, L.L.C. is
a resident of Arkansas.
Defendant Optimum Louisiana, L.L.C. was dissolved on August 5, 2016.
Before dissolution, its only member was Optimum Agriculture, L.L.C., which is
citizen of Arkansas (as set forth above). Therefore, Optimum Louisiana, L.L.C. was
a citizen of Arkansas.
Defendant Optimum Agriculture FL, L.L.C. is a limited liability company
whose only member is Gaston Marquevich, a citizen of Argentina who is not a
permanent resident of the United States (Doc. 1-2). 1 Therefore, Optimum Agriculture
FL, L.L.C. is a citizen of Argentina.
Defendant Southwind Milling Co., L.L.C. is a limited liability company whose
members are Gaston Marquevich and Alberto San Miguel, citizens of Argentina who
are not permanent residents of the United States (Docs. 1-2, 1-3).
Southwind Milling Co., L.L.C. is a citizen of Argentina.
Defendant Wilshire Insurance Company was incorporated in North Carolina
and has its principal place of business in North Carolina. Therefore, it is a citizen of
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) states:
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between–
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the
district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an
action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who
are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are
domiciled in the same State;
Defendant Southern Insurance Company was incorporated in Texas and has
its principal place of business in Texas. Therefore, it is a citizen of Texas.
Defendant Santos Hollman is a citizen of Argentina who is not a permanent
resident of the United States (Doc. 1-4).
Defendant Alex Mondragon is a citizen of Mexico and a permanent resident of
the United States who resides in Arkansas. Therefore, Mondragon is considered a
citizen of both Mexico and Arkansas for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2); Intex U.S.A., L.L.C. v. Engle, 467 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing
Saadeh v. Farouki, 107 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Rigel v. Rosewood Hotels and
Resorts, L.L.C., 2014 WL 6991331 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
Defendant Olegario Villalon, misspelled in the original petition as Olae Gario
Vigalon, is a citizen of Mexico (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs’ action was filed in state court on
August 4, 2016 and amended to correct Villalon’s name on August 8, 2017, after an
answer was filed and without a motion to amend (Doc. 15). A summons was then
issued under the corrected name (Doc. 16). Federal jurisdiction in a removal case
depends upon complete diversity. The existence of diversity is determined from the
fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of service
(notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)). 2 See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel,
28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b)(2) states:
(b) Removal based on diversity of citizenship.–
(2) A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction
under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in
interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in
which such action is brought.
142 F.3d 873, 883 (5th Cir. 1998). Rule 15(c)(3) 3 was designed for occasions where a
plaintiff misnames a defendant.
This is a case of misnomer rather than
misidentification. Because the facts of this case appear to satisfy the requirements
set forth under Rule 15(c)(3), the amended complaint may relate back to the date of
filing of the original complaint. See Taylor v. Am. Tobacco Co., Inc., 983 F. Supp. 686,
688 (E.D. Mich. 1997); see also Taylor v. Alabama CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C., 2017
WL3009695, *5 at n.5 (N.D. Ala. 2017). Therefore, at the time the notice of removal
was filed, Villalon appears to have been a party to the action. It is not shown whether
Villalon was a permanent resident of the United States at the time of removal and, if
so, what state he resides in.
Diversity of citizenship is not clear from the pleadings. The existence of federal
jurisdiction is in question.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) states in pertinent part:
(c) Relation Back of Amendments.
(1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a pleading relates
back to the date of the original pleading when:
(A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the
conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out–or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading; or
(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party
against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if,
within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and
complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment:
(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be
prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been
brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order upon all parties
to this action IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of proof of service or an appearance.
IT IS ORDERED that, no later than 21 days from service of this Order,
Defendant Wilshire Insurance Company shall file: (1) a Jurisdictional Memorandum
stating whether Olegario Villalon is a permanent resident of the United States and,
if so, what state he resides in; and (2) a motion under for leave to amend the
jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal to adequately allege diversity
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will be allowed 7 days from receipt
of Defendants’ memorandum regarding jurisdiction to file a Response.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this _____
day of August, 2017.
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?