Charles v. Pineda et al
Filing
11
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER: Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, not more than 21 days after the date of this order, Plaintiff 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 have 7 days to respond to Plaintiffs submission. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 7/22/2014. (crt,Putch, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
DIANNE CHARLES
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-2914
VERSUS
JUDGE DOHERTY
JOSE PINEDA, ET AL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER
In her Complaint for Damages, Plaintiff Dianne Charles has asserted that this
Court has jurisdiction over the captioned 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, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that federal
jurisdiction exists.
Plaintiff invokes this Court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§1332, diversity citizenship. [Rec. Doc. 1, ¶1], and she further alleges that as a result
1
St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998).
of the described accident, her damages are in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs. [Rec. Doc. 1, ¶14]. On the question of citizenship, Plaintiff asserts she is
a resident of St. Martinville, Louisiana. [Rec. Doc. 1]. She alleges that the defendants
are Jose Pineda, a resident of Texas; Mega Master’s Transportation, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company doing business within Texas; and Global Hawk Insurance
Company, a foreign company doing business in California. [Rec. Doc. 1, ¶2].
Defendant Pineda has been dismissed for failure to effect service upon him. [Rec.
Doc. 9]. The remaining defendants have acknowledged their status as described in
the complaint, however, the information is sparse, and the undersigned is unable to
determine whether diversity of citizenship exists among the parties based on the
pleading.
When jurisdiction is based on diversity, the citizenship of the parties must be
distinctly and affirmatively alleged.2 The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a
Louisiana citizen and that the remaining defendants are foreign companies authorized
to do business in Louisiana. One of the defendants appears to be a corporation. A
corporation’s citizenship is determined by its state of incorporation and the state of
its principal place of business.3 The allegations in the petition are insufficient to
2
Mullins v. Testamerica Inc., 300 Fed. App’x 259, 259 (5th Cir. 2008).
3
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
-2-
establish the citizenship of the defendant Global Hawk Insurance Company,
indicating only that the company does business within the State of California. The
Global Corporate Disclosure Statement provides no additional clarification. [Rec.
Doc. 6].
As to Defendant Mega Master’s Transportation, LLC, the information to
establish citizenship is similarly lacking. A limited liability company (LLC) 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 company is not diverse. The absence of this critical
information in the pleadings prevents the undersigned from being able to determine
whether the parties are actually diverse in citizenship, as alleged.
4
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
association is based upon the citizenship of all of its members). 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.”)
-3-
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, not more than twenty-one days after the date of this
order, Plaintiff 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 have seven days to
respond to Plaintiff’s submission.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 22nd day of July, 2014.
________________________________
Patrick J. Hanna
United States Magistrate Judge
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?