Christle v. Ryder Truck Rental Inc et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint to address the jurisdictional issues discussed above. Defendants are encouraged to voluntarily provide Plaintiff the information regarding their principal place s of business, so as to expedite the resolution of this preliminary issue without unnecessary expense. Plaintiff will be alloweduntil July 19, 2010 to comply with this order. ( Compliance Deadline set for 7/19/2010.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 6/21/10. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R E V E P O R T DIVISION

D U A N E LEROY CHRISTLE, JR. VERSUS R Y D E R TRUCK RENTAL, INC., E T AL

C IV IL ACTION NO. 10-cv-0105 J U D G E WALTER M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HORNSBY

M E M O R A N D U M ORDER P la in tif f filed this action based on an assertion of diversity jurisdiction and named s e v e ra l defendants. Plaintiff has now twice amended the complaint, with the identity of the n a m e d defendants changing in each amendment. The Second Amended Complaint, the most re c en t and restated version of the complaint, does not list as a defendant Eagle Distributing S e rv ic e s, LLC or G & G Distributing Corp. It appears, therefore, that Plaintiff has elected n o t to name those two companies as defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate E ag le Distributing Services, LLC and G & G Distributing Corp. as defendants. If the court h as misinterpreted Plaintiff's pleadings in this regard, counsel should contact the court i m m e d i a t e l y. T h e next task is to ensure that the complaint states the facts necessary to establish a b a sis to exercise diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff, as the party who filed the action in federal c o u rt, has the burden in this regard. There are a number of critical facts missing from the S e c o n d Amended Complaint that must be supplied to determine whether or not the court has su b ject-m atter jurisdiction. Prescription is interrupted only if a complaint is filed in a court

o f competent jurisdiction, so it is important for that reason as well that Plaintiff address this is s u e . P lain tiff describes himself as a "resident" of Michigan. It is domicile rather than mere re sid e n c y that decides citizenship for diversity purposes, and "[i]t is well established that an a lle g a tio n of residency does not satisfy the requirement of an allegation of citizenship." Great P lain s Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley, 313 F.3d 305, 310 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2002), quoting Strain v . Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, Plaintiff must allege w ith specificity the state in which he is domiciled. Defendant Robert Blakeley is described only as "an individual" with a service address in Louisiana. Plaintiff must allege with specificity the state in which Blakeley is domiciled. T h e re are three corporate defendants: Eagle Distributing of Shreveport, Inc.; Ryder T ru c k Rental, Inc.; and The Netherlands Insurance Company. They are described as L o u is ia n a , Florida, and New Hampshire corporations respectively. The Second Amended C o m p lain t does not, however, allege the state in which any of the corporations has its p rin c ip a l place of business. To establish diversity jurisdiction, a complaint must set forth " w ith specificity" a corporate party's state of incorporation and its principal place of b u s in e ss . "Where the plaintiff [or removing party] fails to state the place of incorporation o r the principal place of business of a corporate party, the pleadings are inadequate to estab lish diversity." Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 677 F.2d 1035, 1039 (5th Cir. 1982).

Page 2 of 3

T h e test for determining a corporation's principal place of business is set forth in Hertz v. F rie n d , 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010). Plaintiff is directed to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint to address the ju ris d ic tio n a l issues discussed above. Defendants are encouraged to voluntarily provide P l a i n t if f the information regarding their principal places of business, so as to expedite the re so lu tio n of this preliminary issue without unnecessary expense. Plaintiff will be allowed u n til July 19, 2010 to comply with this order. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 21st day of June, 2010.

Page 3 of 3