Daniels v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT UNIFI AVIATION, LLC TO CLARIFY INFORMATION IN ITS JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT re 41 ; Response due by 11/28/2022, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 22-cv-10203
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT UNIFI AVIATION, LLC TO
CLARIFY INFORMATION IN ITS JURISDICTIONAL
On November 1, 2022, the Court directed Defendant Unifi Aviation,
LLC to identify the citizenship of its members. (ECF No. 40.) The Court
requested this information to “make a final determination on the issue of
subject matter jurisdiction” based on diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at
PageID.274.) On November 14, 2022, Unifi filed a jurisdictional
statement identifying the citizenship of its members. (ECF No. 41.)
In its jurisdictional statement, Unifi indicates that some of its
members are citizens of Delaware, Georgia, and/or Florida. (See id. at
PageID.277.) One entity referenced in the jurisdictional statement—
Argenbright Master Holdings, LLC—is partially owned by two trusts
that “were formed in the state of Nevada.” (Id.) But a trust’s citizenship
is the citizenship of its trustee or trustees. See Gen. Ret. Sys. of City of
Detroit v. UBS AG, No. 10-CV-13920, 2010 WL 5296957, at *4 (E.D. Mich.
Dec. 20, 2010) (“[W]hen considering whether diversity jurisdiction exists,
the citizenship of the trust should be determined by the citizenship of its
trustee or trustees only.”); Yarbrough v. Quince Nursing & Rehab. Ctr.,
LLC, No. 22:2-cv-02126-TLP-tmp, 2022 WL 2812262, at *2 (W.D. Tenn.
July 18, 2022) (“[A] trust has the citizenship of its trustees.” (citing
Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. 378, 382–83
(2016))). Because Unifi has not provided the citizenship of the trustee or
trustees of the two trusts it references in its jurisdictional statement, the
Court cannot evaluate whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
In addition, the Court has incomplete information about the
citizenship of a different entity identified in the jurisdictional statement
as both “Scrub Holdings, Inc.” and “Scrubs Holdings, Inc.” (ECF No. 41,
PageID.277.) Unifi indicates that “Scrubs Holdings, Inc[.] has its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia and was formed in the
state of Illinois.” (Id.) The Court noted in its September 14, 2022 show
cause order directed at Plaintiff Nicole Daniels that “a corporation is a
citizen of possibly two states: the state where it is incorporated and the
state where its principal place of business is located.” (ECF No. 20,
PageID.137 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).) Here, Unifi does not specify
Scrubs’ state of incorporation. Unifi’s assertion that Scrubs “was formed
in the state of Illinois” (ECF No. 41, PageID.277) might be intended to
indicate that it was incorporated in Illinois. However, this language is
unclear, and the Court was unable to find “Scrub Holdings, Inc.” or
“Scrubs Holdings, Inc.” in the Illinois Secretary of State’s Department of
Business Services online database.
Accordingly, by November 28, 2022, Unifi must clarify the
information that appears in its jurisdictional statement by identifying (1)
the citizenship of each of the two trusts that partially own Argenbright
Master Holdings, LLC, (2) the correct name of the entity referred to as
both “Scrub Holdings, Inc.” and “Scrubs Holdings, Inc.,” and (3) the state
of incorporation of “Scrub Holdings, Inc.” or “Scrubs Holdings, Inc.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2022
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 18, 2022.
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?