Miller v. Under Armour Retail of Louisiana L L C

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 7 Amended Notice of Removal filed by Under Armour Retail of Louisiana L L C. Under Armour will be allowed one final opportunity to file an amended notice of removal by March 2, 2018 and attempt to meet its burden of e stablishing complete diversity. If it fails to do so on that third opportunity, the court will remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court expects that the lawyers involved in a case will read the court's orders, in full, and comply with those orders, in full. Compliance Deadline set for 3/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 2/16/2018. (crt,Keller, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
SHANNA MILLER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-cv-0148

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

UNDER ARMOUR RETAIL OF
LOUISIANA, LLC

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Under Armour Retail of Louisiana, LLC removed this personal injury case based
on an assertion of diversity jurisdiction, which puts the burden on Under Armour to set
forth facts that show there is complete diversity of citizenship. The court issued an order
(Doc. 6) and pointed out that the notice of removal does not adequately allege Under
Armour’s own citizenship, so Under Armour was given the opportunity to file an amended
notice of removal and set forth the necessary information.
Under Armour filed an amended notice of removal and clarified that it is a limited
liability company. Doc. 7, ¶¶ 3 & 9. It did not, however, set forth its membership in
accordance with the rules that were explained in a simple and straightforward fashion in
paragraph three of the court’s prior order. Under Armour will be allowed one final
opportunity to file an amended notice of removal by March 2, 2018 and attempt to meet
its burden of establishing complete diversity. If it fails to do so on that third opportunity,
the court will remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Lest there be any confusion, the prior order stated: If Under Armour is an LLC, it
will need to allege its citizenship in accordance with the applicable rules. The citizenship
of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of all of its members, with its state of
organization or principal place of business being irrelevant. Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling
Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (5th Cir. 2008). “A party seeking to establish diversity jurisdiction
must specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC or partnership
involved in a litigation.” Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d
530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017). If the members are themselves partnerships, LLCs, corporations
or other form of entity, their citizenship must be alleged in accordance with the rules
applicable to that entity, and the citizenship must be traced through however many layers
of members or partners there may be. Feaster v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 2007 WL
3146363 (W.D. La. 2007). The court has explained the need for such detail in cases such
as Burford v. State Line Gathering System, LLC, 2009 WL 2487988 (W.D. La. 2009) and
Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 2949404 (W.D. La. 2014).
The court expects that the lawyers involved in a case will read the court’s orders, in
full, and comply with those orders, in full. Otherwise, the court’s time is wasted, which is
what happened here. Again, if Under Armour does not comply fully with this order by
March 2, 2018, this case will be summarily remanded to state court.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 16th day of February,
2018.

Page 2 of 2