Century BP, LLC v. Lakepointe Holdings II, LLC et al

Filing 4

ORDER that Defendants SHOW CAUSE in writing, on or before September 14, 2012, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 08/31/12. (kll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Century BP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 12-2142 (RHK/JJG)
ORDER

v.
Lakepointe Holdings II, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court sua sponte.
On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff Century BP, LLC (“Century”) commenced this
action in the Anoka County, Minnesota District Court against Defendants Lakepointe
Holdings II, LLC (“Lakepointe”), World Fuel Services, Inc. (“World”), and William
Elliott, asserting several state-law claims. Invoking diversity jurisdiction, Defendants
removed the action to this Court on August 30, 2012. In their Notice of Removal,
Defendants assert that “as set forth in the Complaint, Defendants . . . are all citizens of
states other than the State of Minnesota.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 4.) The Complaint, in
turn, alleges that Lakepointe is a “Wisconsin limited liability company headquartered [in]
Fox Point, Wisconsin”; World is a Texas corporation with a “business address” in Doral,
Florida; and Elliott is a Wisconsin resident. (Compl. ¶¶ 2-4.) The Notice of Removal
says nothing about Century’s citizenship, although the Complaint alleges that it is “a
Minnesota limited liability company with a registered office address” in Minneapolis.
(Id. ¶ 1.)

As the parties invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Defendants bear the burden of
alleging facts sufficient to establish the existence of diversity. E.g., Walker v. Norwest
Corp., 108 F.3d 158, 161 (8th Cir. 1997). Doing so required them to allege “with
specificity the citizenship of the parties.” Barclay Square Props. v. Midwest Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ass’n of Minneapolis, 893 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir. 1990). They have failed to do so
here for several reasons.
First, the Complaint makes clear that two of the parties (Century and Lakepointe)
are limited liability companies. A limited liability company’s citizenship is determined
by that of its members. E.g., OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346
(8th Cir. 2007); GMAC Commercial Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d
827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004). Yet, neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal contains
any information about the citizenship of Century’s or Lakepointe’s members – indeed, no
members are identified at all.
Second, World is a corporation, and hence it is a citizen of (1) its state of
incorporation and (2) the state in which its principal place of business is located. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). While the Complaint alleges that World is incorporated in Texas, it
alleges only that World has a “business address” in Florida. The Court simply cannot tell
if this means World’s principal place of business is, in fact, located in Florida.
Third, the Complaint alleges that Elliott is a resident of Wisconsin, but citizenship
is determined by an individual’s domicile, e.g., Yeldell v. Tutt, 913 F.2d 533, 537 (8th
Cir. 1990), and residence and domicile are not synonymous. See Sanders v. Clemco

-2-

Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (district court properly determined it lacked
diversity jurisdiction where complaint alleged only residency of plaintiffs).
For all of these reasons, the Court cannot discern whether there exists diversity
jurisdiction over this case. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants
SHOW CAUSE in writing, on or before September 14, 2012, why this action should not
be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Date: August 31, 2012

s/Richard H. Kyle
RICHARD H. KYLE
United States District Judge

-3-