Ozark Physical Therapy, LLP et al v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by April 8, 2014, defendant shall file a Response to the Court which shall allege facts establishing the state(s) of which each of the plaintiffs' members is a citizen, including the principal pla ce of business for corporate members, both at the time of filing and the time of removal.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall have until April 22, 2014 to file any response. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if defendant does not timely and fully comply with this order, this matter will be remanded to the state court from which it was removed, 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 4/8/2014.), Case stayed., Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/25/14. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

OZARK PHYSICAL THERAPY, LLC,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INS. CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-CV-152 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file upon assignment to the undersigned.
The Eighth 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).
Plaintiffs initially filed suit in the Circuit Court of Butler County, Missouri, alleging that
defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company wrongfully declined to cover losses sustained
by plaintiffs under an insurance policy between plaintiffs and Hartford. The defendant removed
the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.
Defendant Hartford, as the party invoking jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving that
all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. See In re Business Men’s Assur. Co. of America,
992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993).
Although no party has contested Diversity Jurisdiction in this case, “[i]n 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).
Statutes conferring diversity jurisdiction are to be strictly construed. Sheeran v. Gustafson, 967

F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992). There must be allegations of each party’s place of citizenship,
including allegations of any corporate party’s state of incorporation and principal place of
business. 28 U.S.C. §§1332(a), (c)(1); see Sanders, 823 F.2d at 215 n.1. For limited liability
companies and partnerships such as Ozark Physical Therapy, LLP, and Ozark Physical Medicine,
LLC, the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of the limited liability
company/partnership for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v.
Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004). Diversity must exist both when the
state petition is filed and when the petition for removal is filed. Ryan v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers,
Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e)). Defendant’s removal notice
is procedurally defective because it does not allege sufficient facts to establish the Court’s
jurisdiction over this matter.
The Court will grant defendant fourteen days in which to allege facts showing the
existence of the requisite diversity of citizenship of the parties. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
1446(a), which requires that the notice of removal contain a “short and plain statement” of the
grounds for removal and be signed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, this Order
requires only allegations of the requisite jurisdictional facts. Plaintiff will have the opportunity
to respond. Defendant’s failure to timely and fully comply with this Order will result in the
remand of this case for lack of subject matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by April 8, 2014, defendant shall file a Response to
the Court which shall allege facts establishing the state(s) of which each of the plaintiffs’
members is a citizen, including the principal place of business for corporate members, both at the
time of filing and the time of removal.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall have until April 22, 2014 to file
any response.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if defendant does not timely and fully comply with
this order, this matter will be remanded to the state court from which it was removed, 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

25th

day of March, 2014

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3