ATC Sequoia, LLC v. Construction Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER Requiring Filing of Statement of Jurisdiction within 48 hours. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 8/27/15. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
ATC SEQUOIA, LLC

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-144-DMB-JMV

CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC.

DEFENDANT

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 48 hours of entry 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 Plaintiff ATC Sequoia, LLC “is a Delaware corporation authorized to do
business in Mississippi. . . . Federal diversity jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
because . . . [ATC Sequoia, LLC] is a resident of a different state from the Defendant. . . . 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.

1

Although Plaintiff 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.”).

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 48 hours of entry 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 27th day of August, 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).

2