Bresee v. Juden et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by October 10, 2012, defendant shall file an amended removal petition which shall allege facts establishing the citizenship of each of Wal-mart Stores East, L.P.'s members.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at if defendant does not timely and fully comply withthis order, this matter will be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending further order of this Court. Response to Court due by 10/10/2012. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/19/12. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

LINDA BRESEE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:12-CV-160 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file following assignment to the
undersigned. The Eight Circuit has admonished district courts to “be attentive to a satisfaction of
jurisdictional requirements in all cases.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir.
1987). “In every federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to
the merits of other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d
1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 2006). “A plaintiff who seeks to invoke diversity jurisdiction of the federal
courts must plead citizenship distinctly and affirmatively.” 15 James Wm. Moore, et al.,
Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31 (3d ed. 2010). Because this action has been removed from
state court to this Court, the party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction is the defendant;
however, the party seeking removal has burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction.
In re Business Men’s Assur. Co. of America, 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993).
The Notice of Removal (#1) asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over the action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the lawsuit is between citizens of different States and the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. The Petition alleges that defendant “WalMart Stores East, L.P. is a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas.”

The Eighth Circuit has held that limited liability companies and limited partnerships are
citizens of every state of which any member is a citizen. See GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v.
Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004). The defendant, a limited
partnership, has apparently addressed its citizenship like that of a corporation, not a limited
partnership, and thus it has not alleged its citizenship adequately.
Because it is the defendant’s burden in this case to establish subject matter jurisdiction, In
re Business Men’s Assur. Co. of America, 992 F.2d at 183, the Court will grant defendant twentyone (21) days to file an amended petition which alleges facts showing the existence of the
requisite diversity of citizenship of the parties. If defendant fails to timely and fully comply with
this Order, the Court will remand this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by October 10, 2012, defendant shall file an amended
removal petition which shall allege facts establishing the citizenship of each of Wal-mart Stores
East, L.P.’s members.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if defendant does not timely and fully comply with
this order, this matter will be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED
pending further order of this Court.
Dated this 19th day of September, 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2