Druey v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER OF REMAND TO STATE COURT: Ordered that this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Harrison County, First Judicial District. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 4/13/2015. (JCH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OLLIE DRUEY
V.
BED BATH & BEYOND, INC.;
THE PROMENADE
D’IBERVILLE, LLC; and
JOHN DOES 1-10

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 1:15-cv-21-HSO-JCG

DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF REMAND TO STATE COURT
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte, upon its March 11, 2015,
Order [16] which directed briefing on the issue of the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, particularly the citizenship of Defendant The Promenade D’Iberville,
LLC. The Court required Defendants to file briefs on or before March 20, 2015,
demonstrating that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. After Defendants
requested additional time [21], the Court granted Defendants until April 10, 2015,
to file their briefs. Neither Defendant filed a brief by that deadline. Having
considered the record as a whole and relevant legal authorities, for the reasons that
follow, this case must be remanded to the Circuit Court of Harrison County,
Mississippi, First Judicial District.
I. BACKGROUND
This case stems from a trip and fall which allegedly occurred in front of
Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.’s store location in Defendant The Promenade
D’Iberville, LLC’s shopping center in D’Iberville, Mississippi. Plaintiff filed her

Complaint [1-2] in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, First Judicial
District, on October 14, 2014, naming Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., as the sole
Defendant. Compl. [1-2] at 1. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., removed the case to this
Court on January 21, 2015, invoking diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Notice of Removal [1] at 1-2.
On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend [5] her Complaint to
add The Promenade D’Iberville, LLC, as a Defendant. The Magistrate Judge
granted the Motion on January 28, 2015, and Plaintiff filed her Amended
Complaint [6] the same date. Because the Amended Complaint did not disclose the
citizenship of the members of Defendant The Promenade D’Iberville, LLC, the
Magistrate Judge entered an Order [16] on March 11, 2015, requiring Defendants to
file briefs demonstrating that there was federal subject matter jurisdiction. See
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that
a limited liability company’s citizenship is that of its members). Defendants’ briefs
were due on April 10, 2015.
While Defendants have not filed a formal brief into the record, Defense
counsel has advised the Court that, despite their due diligence, Defendants are
unable to ascertain the citizenship of Defendant The Promenade D’Iberville, LLC,
for diversity of citizenship purposes. The Court is therefore unable to determine
whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case.

-2-

II. DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over those matters specifically
designated by the Constitution or Congress. Epps v. Bexar-Medina-Atascosa
Counties Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 665 F.2d 594, 595 (5th Cir. 1982). For this
reason, removal statutes are subject to strict construction. Willy v. Coastal Corp.,
855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir. 1988). Doubts about whether federal jurisdiction
exists following removal must be resolved against a finding of jurisdiction. Acuna v.
Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Willy, 855 F.2d at
1164). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction over the state court suit. Boone v. Citigroup, Inc., 416 F.3d 382, 388
(5th Cir. 2005); Willy, 855 F.2d at 1164.
Based upon the record as a whole, the Court cannot conclude that complete
diversity of citizenship exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants have been unable
to ascertain the citizenship of The Promenade D’Iberville, LLC, for purposes of
determining whether there exists complete diversity of citizenship. Because the
Court must resolve all doubts about whether jurisdiction exists in favor of remand,
remand is required. See Acuna, 200 F.3d at 339.

-3-

III. CONCLUSION
Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. The case must be remanded to
state court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, this civil action
is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, First Judicial
District, and that a certified copy of this Order of remand shall be immediately
mailed by the Clerk to the clerk of the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 13th April, 2015.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-