Todaro et al v. Tutle & Tutle Trucking et al

Filing 9

ORDER re 8 Amended Notice of Removal filed by National Specialty Insurance Co. Defendant is granted leave to file an amended notice of removal which establishes diversity jurisdiction within the next seven days from the date of this order. If defendant fails to so comply, or if subject matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, then the matter will be remanded to state court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 09/27/12. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
LAURA LEANNE TODARO, ET AL.

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2027

VERSUS

*

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS

TUTLE & TUTLE TRUCKING, INC.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

ORDER
On September 11, 2012, this court observed that the notice of removal filed by defendant,
National Specialty Insurance Company (“NSIC”), failed to allege not only the citizenship of the
parties, but also that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. (Sept. 11,
2012, Order [doc. # 5]). Accordingly, the court granted NSIC leave of court to amend the notice
of removal to remedy these deficient jurisdictional allegations. Id.
On September 13, 2012, NSIC filed an Amended Notice of Removal that set forth the
citizenship of plaintiffs and that of the individual defendant. (Amend. Notice of Removal).1
Although the amended notice stated that defendant Tutle & Tutle Trucking Inc. was a Texas
corporation, it conspicuously omitted Tutle & Tutle Trucking, Inc.’s principal place of business.
Id. Instead, NSIC alleged only that Tutle & Tutle Trucking, Inc. was “doing business in the State
of Texas.” Id.
In diversity cases involving corporations, however, “allegations of citizenship must set
forth the state of incorporation as well as the principal place of business of each

1

The amended notice also alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded the
jurisdictional minimum. Id.

corporation.” Getty Oil, Div. Of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir.
1988). Moreover, “principal place of business,” is a term of art. Thus, allegations regarding a
corporation’s “place of business,” “principal office,” or where it does business are not necessarily
equivalent, and do not suffice. See e.g., Neat-N-Tidy Co., Inc. v. Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd.,
777 F.Supp. 1153, 1156-1157 (S.D. N.Y. 1991) (“an allegation of the situs of a corporation's
principal offices, without more, is insufficient to establish that corporation's principal place of
business.”).
Accordingly, within the next seven days from the date of this order, removing defendant
is granted leave of court to file an amended notice of removal which establishes diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1653. If defendant fails to so comply, or if subject matter
jurisdiction is found to be lacking, then the matter will be remanded to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 27th day of
September 2012.

2