Gayneaux et al v. National Oilwell Varco, LP

Filing 7

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that, not later than twenty-one days after the date of this order, the plaintiffs shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a finding that theparties are diverse in citizenship. These facts should be supported withsummary-judgment-type evidence. The defendant will be allowed seven days to respond to the plaintiffs submission. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 4/17/13. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
KENNETH GAYNEAUX AND
SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-cv-00637

VERSUS

JUDGE HAIK

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, LP

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER

The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over this action, under
28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are diverse in citizenship and the matter in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00. The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings to determine whether the
requirements for diversity jurisdiction have been satisfied. The undersigned finds that they
have not.
The party invoking subject matter jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of
establishing the court’s jurisdiction.1 In this case, the plaintiff must bear that burden. The
undersigned has determined that it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount
in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, but the plaintiff has not established 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 The complaint alleges that plaintiff Kenneth Gayneaux is a
1

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

2

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

resident of the state of Louisiana and that plaintiff SeaBright Insurance Company is a foreign
corporation. This is insufficient to establish the citizenship of these parties.
The citizenship of a natural person is determined by the state in which he or she is
domiciled, and domicile is a combination of both a person's residence and his intent to
remain there permanently.3 Therefore, “an allegation that a party is a resident of a certain
state is not a sufficient allegation of his citizenship in that state.”4 Evidence of a person's
place of residence, however, is prima facie proof of his domicile.5 For that reason, the
undersigned will accept that Mr. Gayneaux is a Louisiana citizen if there is no objection from
the defendant.
It appears that plaintiff SeaBright is a corporation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a
corporation is deemed to be a citizen of any state in which it is incorporated and any state
where it has its principal place of business. Therefore, a party invoking diversity jurisdiction
must allege both the state of incorporation and the principal place of business of each
corporate party.6 In this case, however, no such allegations have been made with regard to
SeaBright. For that reason, the undersigned cannot determine whether the parties are diverse
in citizenship.

3

Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2011).

4

Delome v. Union Barge Line Co., 444 F.2d 225, 233 (5th Cir. 1971).

5

Hollinger, 654 F.3d at 571.

6

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 637 (5th Cir. 1983).

-2-

The complaint alleges that defendant National Oilwell Varco, LP is a foreign
partnership.

“For purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, the partnership itself is

considered a citizen of every state of which a general or a limited partner is a citizen.”7 The
complaint does not identify the defendant’s partners or provide any information regarding
their citizenship. This prevents the undersigned from being able to determine whether the
parties are diverse in citizenship.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, not later than twenty-one days after the date of this order, the
plaintiffs 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 defendant will be allowed seven days to respond to
the plaintiffs’ submission.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 17th day of April 2013.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Bankston v. Burch, 27 F.3d 164, 166 (5th Cir. 1994), citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs.,
494 U.S. 185, 195–96; Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094–95 (5th Cir. 1992). See, also, Harvey
v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079 (5th Cir. 2008).

-3-