American Tower, L.P. v. Urban Radio Broadcasting, LLC et al
ORDER denying 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers on 3/30/2017. (llw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
AMERICAN TOWER, L.P.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV00133-NBB-DAS
URBAN RADIO BROADCASTING, LLC;
URBAN RADIO LICENSES, LLC; AND
URBAN RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause comes before the court upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Upon due consideration, the
court finds that the defendant’s motion should be denied.
The plaintiff alleges that this court has jurisdiction over its claims on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists when the plaintiffs and defendants are citizens
of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Complete diversity is required which means “that all persons on one side of the controversy be
citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.” Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co.,
542 F.3d 1077, 1079 (5th Cir. 2008).
The defendants filed the present motion to dismiss arguing that the citizenship of the
parties is not diverse because the plaintiff and defendants are all entities created under the laws
of the State of Delaware. The plaintiff is a limited partnership, and the defendants are limited
liability companies. “The state under the laws of which a limited partnership [or limited liability
company] is organized is irrelevant for diversity jurisdiction purposes.” Magnolia Management
Corp. v. Quest Rescue Partners-8, L.P., 792 F. Supp. 45, 48 (S.D. Miss. 1992). The citizenship
of a limited partnership or a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of all of
its members. Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990); Harvey, 542 F.3d at
1080. The district court must consider the citizenship of the entity’s limited as well as general
partners to determine the existence of complete diversity. Carden, 494 U.S. at 185.
The record in the case sub judice reveals that the plaintiff is comprised of one general and
one limited partner, ATC, G.P., Inc., and ATC, L.P., Inc., both of which are Delaware
corporations with their principal place of business in Massachusetts. A corporation is “deemed
to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State
or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Accordingly, the plaintiff is a citizen of Delaware and Massachusetts for diversity jurisdiction
purposes. The three defendants are limited liability companies, two formed in Delaware, one
formed in Mississippi, each having its principal place of business in Florida. Because the state in
which a limited liability company is organized is irrelevant for diversity jurisdiction purposes,
the defendants are citizens of Florida only. Complete diversity exists; thus, this court has
jurisdiction of this case, and the defendants’ motion should be denied.
It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction is hereby DENIED.
This, the 30th day of March, 2017.
/s/ Neal Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?