Lee Swimming Pools, LLC v. Bay Pool Company Construction, LLC et al
Filing
16
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss; denying 15 Motion to Strike Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 11/06/2018 (Guirola, Louis)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEE SWIMMING POOLS, LLC
f/k/a/ BAY POOL COMPANY, LLC
v.
PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:18CV118-LG-RHW
BAY POOL COMPANY CONSTRUCTION
LLC, and ADAM LANDRUM
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
BEFORE THE COURT is the [9] Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants,
Bay Pool Company Construction, LLC and Adam Landrum. After the plaintiff
responded to the motion, the defendants filed a [14] Supplemental Motion to
Dismiss. The plaintiffs moved to [15] Strike the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss.
It is the Court’s opinion that the “supplemental motion to dismiss” should be
construed as a rebuttal to the plaintiffs’ response to the Motion to Dismiss. The
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss is therefore rendered moot, and the motion to
strike it will be denied. Further, after due consideration of the parties’ submissions
concerning diversity jurisdiction and the relevant law, it is the Court’s opinion that
it has jurisdiction over the parties in this case. Accordingly, the defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss will be denied.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action. The plaintiff Lee Swimming Pools, LLC
sold the assets of Bay Pool Company, LLC to Bay Pool Company Construction, LLC
(“BPCC”) for $200,000 in February 2016. The contract provided for a $50,000 down
payment, with the remaining $150,000 to be paid by monthly payments calculated
from monthly sales and supplier rewards. (Am. Compl. Ex. A, at 1-2, ECF No. 3-1.)
The plaintiff alleges that BPCC stopped making payments after August 2017, when
the outstanding balance was $96,988.10. (Am. Compl. 3, ECF No. 3.) The plaintiff’s
claims against BPCC and its president Adam Landrum are for breach of contract,
tortious breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjust enrichment. Jurisdiction is based on the alleged diversity of the parties;
BPCC and Landrum are alleged to be a citizens of Louisiana, while the plaintiff is
alleged to be a citizen of Mississippi.
The defendants filed the motion now before the Court seeking dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that complete diversity does not exist
because defendant Adam Landrum is actually a citizen of Mississippi.1
ESTABLISHING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
The plaintiff seeking to recover in a federal court has the burden to show that
there was complete diversity of citizenship when the complaint was originally filed.
Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., 669 F.3d 214, 224 (5th Cir. 2012). The defendants argue
that the plaintiff cannot show complete diversity because Defendant Adam
Landrum was a resident of Mississippi when this lawsuit was filed in April 2018.
They support this argument with three bills for services at a Bay St. Louis,
1
Although not dispositive in this case, as a member of the BPCC LLC
Landrum’s citizenship also determines the citizenship of the LLC. Brand Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Irex Corp., No. 17-30660, 2018 WL 5023783, at *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018).
-2-
Mississippi address and applications to rent unidentified property.
When a defendant makes a “factual” attack on a court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court is “free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the
existence of its power to hear the case.” Morris v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 540 F. Supp.
898, 900 (S.D. Tex. 1982) aff’d, 696 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1983). “[F]ederal courts must
address jurisdictional questions whenever they are raised and must consider
jurisdiction sua sponte if not raised by the parties.”
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Kidd v. Sw.
Airlines, Co., 891 F.2d 540, 546 (5th Cir. 1990)); see also Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380,
383-84 (5th Cir. 2010).
When a party is a person, citizenship is determined by where the party is
domiciled. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., 455 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1972) (“For purposes of
federal diversity jurisdiction ‘citizenship’ and ‘domicile’ are synonymous.”).
Domicile requires the demonstration of two factors: residence and the intention to
remain for an unlimited time. Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553, 555
(5th Cir. 1985); see also Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638-39
(5th Cir. 2003). A person’s state of domicile presumptively continues unless
rebutted with sufficient evidence of change. Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l
Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 793, 797-98 (5th Cir. 2007). An allegation of citizenship in
the new state is not sufficient. “When a person’s citizenship is challenged, the
burden rests with that person to establish her citizenship by a preponderance of the
-3-
evidence.” Costopoulos v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. CV 18-3590, 2018 WL 4739693, at
*4 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2018) (citing Preston, 485 F.3d at 798). The Fifth Circuit has
explained that “the party attempting to show a change [in domicile] assumes the
burden of going forward on that issue. The ultimate burden on the issue of
jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff or the party invoking federal jurisdiction.”
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 250-51 (5th Cir. 1996).
To determine “whether a person has changed his domicile, courts look at
many factors.” Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, 334 F.3d
444, 448 (5th Cir. 2003). They include “the places where the litigant exercises civil
and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, has driver’s and
other licenses, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has places
of business or employment, and maintains a home for his family.” Coury, 85 F.3d at
251. “Domicile is . . . evaluated in terms of objective facts.” Freeman, 754 F.2d at
556.
DISCUSSION
Adam Landrum attacks the factual basis of the Court’s diversity jurisdiction
with 1) his affidavit stating that the statements in his motion to dismiss are true
and correct, including that he is a resident of Mississippi residing at 419 Third
Street in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi; 2) a bill dated October 24, 2017 from AT&T for
new service, addressed to him at 419 Third Street in Waveland (Def. Mot. Ex. A,
ECF No. 9-2); 3) two water bills addressed to Whittney Landrum for service at 419
Third Street in November 2017 and March 2018 (Def. Mot. Ex. B, ECF No. 9-3); and
-4-
3) two separate rental applications dated October 11, 2017, signed by Adam
Landrum and Whittney Landrum, for an unidentified property. (Def. Reb. Ex. B,
ECF No. 14-2.) Both applications state “we are the homeowners” of 30939
Ridgeway Drive in Walker, Louisiana. (Id.)
The plaintiff argues that it correctly alleged Adam Landrum’s Louisiana
citizenship, because public records maintained by the Mississippi Secretary of State
show that BPCC is a Louisiana Limited Liability Company and that “Manager,
Member, President” Adam Landrum’s address is 30939 Ridgeway Drive in Walker,
Louisiana. (Pl. Resp. Ex. A, ECF No. 12-1.) The Court notes that the Louisiana
Secretary of State’s public records show the same address for Adam Landrum as a
member of BPCC LLC.
The Court concludes that the evidence presented does not overcome the
presumption that Landrum’s domicile continues to be Louisiana. His business has
offices in Louisiana and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. He apparently owns real
property in Louisiana while he rents real property in Mississippi. Given all the
possible ways to show indicia of the intention to stay in Mississippi listed above, he
has provided only a few bills for services at a home in Mississippi. Although he may
maintain a household in Mississippi, that is insufficient to establish his domicile
here. In sum, there is scant evidence of residence in Mississippi, and no evidence of
intention to remain indefinitely. For these reasons, the Court finds that it has
diversity jurisdiction in this case. The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [9] Motion to
-5-
Dismiss filed by the defendants, Bay Pool Company Construction, LLC and Adam
Landrum, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [14]
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss is MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [15] Motion to
Strike Supplemental Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 6th day of November, 2018.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?