Schlabach v. Motel 6 Operating L P

Filing 14

SECOND SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that, not more than seven days after the date of this order, the defendants shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a finding that the parties are diverse in citizenship. These facts should be supported with summary-judgment-type evidence. The defendants will be allowed five days torespond. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 12/4/12. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
CATHY SCHLABACH

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-02173

VERSUS

JUDGE DOHERTY

MOTEL 6 OPERATING, L.P., ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

SECOND
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER

Defendants Motel 6 Operating, L.P. and Accor North America, Inc. removed
this action from state court, arguing that this Court has jurisdiction because the parties
are diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
threshold. The undersigned found that the amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied, but the diversity of citizenship requirement is not satisfied. (Rec. Doc. 12).
The undersigned afforded the parties an opportunity to submit a memorandum
establishing the parties’ citizenship. (Rec. Doc. 12). The defendants complied. (Rec.
Doc. 13). The plaintiff did not file a memorandum within the allotted deadline.
The undersigned reviewed the defendants’ submission but, again, cannot
determine whether the parties are diverse in citizenship. Although a corporation is
a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its

principal place of business,1 a limited liability company is a citizen of every state in
which any member of the company is a citizen,2 and “the citizenship of a LLC is
determined by the citizenship of all of its members.”3 Therefore, the diversity
analysis for a limited liability company requires a determination of the citizenship of
every member of the company.4 If any one of the members is not diverse, the limited
liability company is not diverse. The defendants are also cautioned that diversity
jurisdiction is evaluated as of the time of removal.5
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, not more than seven days after the date of this order, the
defendants shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a finding

1

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

2

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

3

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

4

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
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.”)
5

Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 686 (5th Cir. 2000).
-2-

that the parties are diverse in citizenship. These facts should be supported with
summary-judgment-type evidence. The defendants will be allowed five days to
respond.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 4th day of December 2012.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-