Layton et al v. Chevron Environmental Management Co et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Plaintiffs filed their complaint in federal court based on an assertion of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, as the parties bringing the suit, have the burden of establishing facts that permit the exercise of jurisdiction. Their complaint is deficient in some respects, so they are directed to file an amended complaint by 7/1/2013 to remedy the matters discussed with in this order. Compliance Deadline set for 7/1/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 6/18/2013. (crt,Putch, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

ERICA LAYTON, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-cv-1634

VERSUS

JUDGE HICKS

CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs filed their complaint in federal court based on an assertion of diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, as the parties bringing the suit, have the burden of establishing facts
that permit the exercise of jurisdiction. Their complaint is deficient in some respects, so they
are directed to file an amended complaint by July 1, 2013 to remedy the matters discussed
below.
Plaintiffs describe themselves as residents of Louisiana. It is domicile rather than
mere residency that decides citizenship for diversity purposes, and “[i]t is well established
that an allegation of residency does not satisfy the requirement of an allegation of
citizenship.” Great Plains 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). Plaintiffs will
need to allege the state(s) in which they are domiciled.
The two defendants are Chevron Environmental Management Company and
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Inc. Plaintiffs do not squarely allege the form of these
entities, but it appears they may both be corporations. A corporation is deemed to be a

citizen of (1) the state in which it was incorporated and (2) the state where it has its principal
place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). To establish diversity jurisdiction, a complaint
or notice of removal must set forth “with specificity” a corporate party’s state of
incorporation and its principal place of business. “Where the plaintiff [or removing party]
fails to state the place of incorporation or the principal place of business of a corporate party,
the pleadings are inadequate to establish diversity.” Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 677
F.2d 1035, 1039 (5th Cir. 1982). The Fifth Circuit requires strict adherence to these
straightforward rules. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs allege the states in which the two defendants have their principal places of
business, but they did not allege the states in which the entities are incorporated. The
amended complaint will need to specifically allege that information.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 18th day of June, 2013.

Page 2 of 2