Armstrong et al v. Multi-Chem Group LLC et al

Filing 44

SUE SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL Briefing Order. IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall submit a brief, not later than twenty one days after the date of this order, setting forth the facts supporting their contention that this court has jurisdiction, speci fically addressing the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy and supporting all relevant facts with summary judgment type evidence. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall then have seven days from the submission of the plaintiffs' brief to file a response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 6/15/2012. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
McKINNIS ARMSTRONG, FOR
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-cv-01515
HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF
HIS JUDICIALLY PLACED GRANDDAUGHTER, KEANDRIA AUGUSTINE,
AND CYNTHIA ARMSTRONG, WIFE
OF McKINNIS ARMSTRONG,
individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated
VERSUS

JUDGE WALTER

MULTI-CHEM GROUP, L.L.C.,
AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

SUE SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER

The plaintiffs allege that this Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28
U.S.C. § 1332, which confers jurisdiction on civil actions when the parties are diverse
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. The undersigned has reviewed
the pleadings to determine whether the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are
satisfied. The undersigned finds that they are not.
The party invoking subject matter jurisdiction in federal court has the burden
of establishing the court’s jurisdiction.1 Therefore, the plaintiffs must bear that
burden in this case.
1

St. Paul Reins. Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253-54 (5th Cir. 1998).

The undersigned finds that the allegations of the plaintiffs’ petition are
insufficient to establish that the parties are diverse in citizenship. When jurisdiction
is based on diversity, the citizenship of the parties must be distinctly and affirmatively
alleged.2 When a class action is brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as this case was,3 and it is claimed that the court has jurisdiction based on
the diversity of the citizenship of the parties, it is sufficient if the named class
representatives are diverse in citizenship from the defendants, without regard to the
citizenship of other members of the plaintiff class.4 “Thus, the citizenship of the
unnamed class members is irrelevant to whether we have diversity jurisdiction, so
long as the named class members are diverse from the opposing parties.”5
In this case, however, the plaintiffs have not sustained that burden. The
plaintiffs allege that plaintiffs McKinnis Armstrong and Cynthia Armstrong are
Louisiana citizens. Defendant XYZ Insurance Company was dismissed from the
lawsuit. (Rec. Doc. 42). Accordingly, Multi-Chem Group, L.L.C. is the only
defendant. The defendants allege that Multi-Chem Group, is a non-Louisiana limited
2

Mullins v. Testamerica Inc., 300 Fed. App’x 259, 259 (5th Cir. 2008).

3

Rec. Doc. 1 at ¶ 7.

4

McLaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 354 -355 (5th Cir. 2004); Carden
v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 199-200 (1990); Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
5

McLaughlin, 376 F.3d at 354.
-2-

liability company. A limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which any
member of the company is a citizen,6 and “the citizenship of a LLC is determined by
the citizenship of all of its members.”7 Therefore, the diversity analysis for a limited
liability company requires a determination of the citizenship of every member of the
company.8 If any one of the members is not diverse, the limited liability company is
not diverse.
In this case, the plaintiffs do not name the members of the company or provide
evidence of their citizenship. Therefore, they have not distinctly and affirmatively
alleged the citizenship of the defendant company. Accordingly, the undersigned
cannot determine, on the basis of the information supplied thus far, whether the
parties are – or are not – diverse in citizenship.
The undersigned also finds that the allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint are
insufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In the
complaint, the plaintiffs do not expressly allege that any plaintiff’s claim exceeds
6

See, Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008).

7

Harvey v. Grey Wolf, 542 F.3d at 1080. [Emphasis added.]

8

See, Harvey v. Grey Wolf, 542 F.3d at 1080; Grupo Dataflux v. Atlans Global Group,
L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 585, n. 1 (2004); Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990);
Randolph v. Wyatt, 2010 WL 299257, 1 (W.D. La. 2010); Miracle Ear, Inc. v. Premier Hearing Aid
Center, L.L.C., 2009 WL 5198183, 1 (W.D. La. 2009). See also Lawson v. Chrysler LLC, 961226,
2 (S.D. Miss. 2009) (“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.”)
-3-

$75,000 nor do they set forth sufficient facts to support a finding that it is facially
apparent that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
Therefore, the undersigned finds that the amount in controversy is not apparent on the
face of the complaint. Accordingly, the plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount9 by
setting forth the facts that support a finding of the requisite amount.10 The claims of
different plaintiffs may not be aggregated to satisfy the $75,000 jurisdictional amount
in a putative class action.11 However, “so long as the amount in controversy for at
least one plaintiff in a class action exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, then the court
may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining class members' claims,
regardless of their individual damages.”12

Thus, the amount in controversy

requirement is satisfied only if at least one of the named plaintiffs claims damages

9

Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir. 2003); De
Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993).
10

Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).

11

Garcia, 351 F.3d at 638-39, citing Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 336-38 (1969).

12

Ackers v. International Paper Co., No. 11–0216, 2011 WL 2559844, at *2 (W.D. La.
June 28, 2011), citing Exxon v. Allapattah, 545 U.S. at 559, and In Re Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 51
F.3d 524, 529 (5th Cir. 1995).
-4-

exceeding $75,000.13 The undersigned finds that insufficient evidence has been
submitted to date to satisfy that requirement.
Whether this court has jurisdiction over this action is a threshold matter that
cannot be resolved on the face of the pleadings filed to date. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall submit a brief, not later than twentyone days after the date of this order, setting forth the facts supporting their contention
that this court has jurisdiction, specifically addressing the citizenship of the parties
and the amount in controversy and supporting all relevant facts with summaryjudgment-type evidence.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall then have seven days
from the submission of the plaintiffs’ brief to file a response.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 15th day of June 2012.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13

H&D Tire and Automotive-Hardware Inc. v. Pitney Bowes Inc., 250 F.3d 302, 306

th

(5 Cir. 2001).
-5-