Cross v. Great American Foods Corp et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER. The removing defendants will be allowed until June 15, 2017 to file an amended notice of removal and set forth specific facts directed at meeting their burden of establishing a basis for diversity jurisdiction or another form of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 5/31/2017. (crt,Keller, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-cv-0694
GREAT AMERICAN FOODS CORP.,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
Velma Cross filed this personal injury action in state court against Great
American Foods Corporation and Scottsdale Insurance Company. Defendants filed
a notice of removal, which puts the burden on them of setting forth facts that provide
grounds for the exercise of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The notice of removal
does not appear to cite a particular grounds for removal, but the only apparent basis
would be diversity jurisdiction.
A removing party who invokes diversity jurisdiction must set forth with
specificity the citizenship of all parties.
Settlement Funding, LLC v. Rapid
Settlements, Limited, 851 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 2017). The citizenship of an individual
is based on that person’s domicile. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley, 313
F.3d 305, 310 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2002). 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); Howery v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001). If a party is an LLC, partnership, or other
unincorporated association, its citizenship depends on that of all of its members.
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (5th Cir. 2008); Adams v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 2949404 (W.D. La. 2014).
A removing party who relies on diversity jurisdiction must also establish that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Many of
the rules applicable to that burden, in the context of similar personal injury suits, are
set forth in cases such as Wright Family Investments, LLC v. Jordan Carriers, Inc.,
2012 WL2457664 (W.D. La. 2012).
The removing defendants will be allowed until June 15, 2017 to file an
amended notice of removal and set forth specific facts directed at meeting their
burden of establishing a basis for diversity jurisdiction or another form of federal
subject-matter jurisdiction. To the extent the notice of removal may have any
Page 2 of 3
procedural defects, such defects must be cured within the 30-day removal period.
The deadline set in this order does not and cannot affect that statutory deadline.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 31st day of May,
Page 3 of 3
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?