Menard v. Midwest Medical Supply Co L L C

Filing 13

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, not later than twenty-one days after the date of this order, Midwest shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support findings that the amount in controversy exc eeds the jurisdictional minimum and the parties are diverse in citizenship. These facts should be supported with summary-judgment-type evidence. The plaintiff will then be allowed seven days to respond to the defendants memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 2/7/2012. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
JAY MENARD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-cv-01517

VERSUS

JUDGE DOHERTY

MIDWEST MEDICAL SUPPLY CO.,
L.L.C.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER

This matter was removed from state court by the defendant, Midwest Medical
Supply Co., L.L.C. The defendant contends that this Court has jurisdiction over this
action because the parties are diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332, federal district courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
exclusive of interest and costs and the parties are citizens of different states. The
person seeking to invoke federal court jurisdiction has the burden of proof of
demonstrating, at the outset of the litigation, that the federal court has authority to
hear the case.1 Therefore, a removing party bears the burden of showing that federal

1

St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998).

jurisdiction exists.2 Furthermore, the basis for diversity jurisdiction must be distinctly
and affirmatively alleged.3
Midwest contends that the parties are diverse in citizenship. In his petition, the
plaintiff stated that he is a citizen of the State of Louisiana. (Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 3). In
its removal notice, Midwest Medical Supply avers that it is a Missouri limited
liability company with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. (Rec.
Doc. 1 at 2). This, however, is insufficient to establish Midwest Medical Supply’s
citizenship.
A limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which any member of
the company is a citizen,4 and “the citizenship of a LLC is determined by the
citizenship of all of its members.”5 Therefore, the diversity analysis for a limited
liability company requires a determination of the citizenship of every member of the
company.6 If any one of the members is not diverse, the limited liability company is

2

Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002);
De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 865 (1995).
3

Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 397 (5th Cir. 2009).

4

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

5

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

6

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) (noting that courts of appeal have held that the citizenship of
each member of a limited liability company counts for diversity purposes); Carden v. Arkoma
Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990) (holding that the citizenship of an unincorporated entity or
-2-

not diverse. Because Midwest has not identified each of its members and stated each
member’s citizenship, the undersigned is unable to determine whether the plaintiff
and the defendant are diverse.
The undersigned is also unable to determine whether the jurisdictional
threshold has been satisfied with regard to the amount in controversy. In a case like
this one, in which the plaintiff does not seek recovery of a determinate amount in its
petition, the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.7 To
satisfy that burden, Midwest must either (1) demonstrate that it is facially apparent
that the claims are likely above $75,000 or (2) set forth the specific facts in
controversy that support a finding of the jurisdictional amount.8
In his petition, the plaintiff averred that he is entitled to recover an unpaid
bonus, which was to have been calculated in accordance with a contract between he
and the defendant. But the contract was not attached to the petition, and no evidence
association is based upon the citizenship of all of its members); Randolph v. Wyatt, No. 09-2020,
2010 WL 299257, at *1 (W.D. La. Jan. 19, 2010); Miracle Ear, Inc. v. Premier Hearing Aid Center,
L.L.C., No. 09-1691, 2009 WL 5198183, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 22, 2009). See also Wright v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 09-cv-0482, 2009 WL 854644, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar. 26, 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.”)
7

St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253.

8

St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253.
-3-

of the appropriate figures to be plugged into the contractual formula were set forth
in the petition. Therefore, the undersigned finds that the amount in controversy is not
facially apparent.
In such a situation, “[t]he preponderance burden forces the defendant to do
more than point to a state law that might allow the plaintiff to recover more than what
is pled. The defendant must produce evidence that establishes that the actual amount
in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional amount].”9 Although Midwest’s removal
notice references a formula and certain figures, Midwest presented insufficient
evidence to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
As the removing party, Midwest has the burden of proving that this Court has
jurisdiction over this matter. Midwest has pleaded insufficient facts to establish that
the parties are diverse in citizenship and insufficient facts to establish the amount in
controversy.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, not later than twenty-one days after the
date of this order, Midwest shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that
support findings that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum
and the parties are diverse in citizenship. These facts should be supported with

9

De Aguilar v. Boeing, 47 F.3d at 1412 (emphasis in original).
-4-

summary-judgment-type evidence. The plaintiff will then be allowed seven days to
respond to the defendant’s memorandum.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 7th day of February 2012.

-5-