Fortune et al v. Taylor Fortune Group, LLC

Filing 26

ORDER requiring an amendment of the pleadings within seven (7) days of this order, asserting an appropriate basis for federal court jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 09/23/2014. (lec)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
BOB AND ELIZABETH FORTUNE

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-cv-105-JMV

TAYLOR FORTUNE GROUP, LLC

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This matter is before the court, sua sponte, to dismiss this cause of action for lack of
federal jurisdiction as explained hereafter.1 Such dismissal may be avoided by an amendment of
the pleadings within seven (7) days of this order, asserting an appropriate basis for federal court
jurisdiction.
The complaint in this case purports to found federal jurisdiction on diversity of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but it does not adequately identify the citizenship of the
parties. “The party asserting diversity jurisdiction must ‘distinctly and affirmatively allege[ ]’ the
citizenship of the parties.” Molina v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., 535 F.Supp.2d 805, 807
(W.D. Tex., 2008) (citing Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001)). The
complaint merely states Taylor Fortune Group, LLC is a Louisiana limited liability company,
with no reference to the citizenship of its members. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a limited
liability company’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Harvey
v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, it does not appear on
the face of the complaint that this court has subject matter jurisdiction. As noted, this defect may
be corrected by the filing, within seven (7) days of this order, of an amended pleading asserting

1

Although Defendants have not argued a failure in this respect, the court must make an independent inquiry into its jurisdiction. Grupo Dataflux
v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing Bender v. Willamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541
(1986)) (“[I]t is the obligation of both district court and counsel to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.”).

the citizenship of the parties and establishing complete diversity. Failure to do so will result in
the court dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED this, the 23rd day of September, 2014.

/s/Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE