Stafford v. DeSoto Acquisition and Development Corporation et al
Filing
8
ORDER; Statement of jurisdiction establishing complete diversity must be filed within five (5) days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 09/21/2015. (bbf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
JENNY STAFFORD
VS.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-140-DMB-JMV
DESOTO ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;
MEMPHIS STREET CAFÉ, LLC; and
NATALIA GUDKOVSKAYA
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal for lack of
federal jurisdiction as explained hereafter.1 Dismissal may be avoided by the filing of a
statement of jurisdiction within five (5) days of the date of this order, asserting an appropriate
basis for federal court jurisdiction.
The Complaint [1] 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 states Defendant, Memphis Street Café, LLC, “is a Mississippi corporation with its
principal place of business located at 2476 Memphis Street, Hernando, MS 38632. . . . Memphis
Street Café, LLC may be served with service of process of this Court through its designated
agent for service of process who is Natalia Gudkovskaya, and whose address for service of
process is 2836 Elise Drive, Hernando, MS 38632.”
1
Although defendant has not raised the issue of 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 Complaint, however, makes no reference to the citizenship of the LLC 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 in the allegations of the Complaint may be corrected by
the filing, within five (5) days of the date of this order, of a statement of jurisdiction outlining the
appropriate states of citizenship necessary to establish complete diversity.2 Failure to do so will
result in the Court dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED this, the 21st day of September, 2015.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the domicile of the parties as opposed to their residence, is the key.”
Combee v. Shell Oil Co., 615 F.2d 698, 700 (5th Cir. 1980).
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?