Bowen v. Griffin

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by February 12, 2014, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint which shall allege facts establishing the citizenship of each of the defendant LLC's members. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plainti ff does not timely and fully comply with this order, this matter will be dismissed 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. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 2/12/2014. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/22/2014. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
LYNEISHA BOWEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK ASHLEY GRIFFIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14CV7 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).
The Complaint in this case 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. Plaintiff named three defendants, including one
defendant identified as a limited liability company (LLC). The Complaint alleges that the
plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois, the two individual defendants are citizens of Missouri, and the
LLC was “formed under the laws of the State of Missouri” and has “its principal place of
business in the State of Missouri.” These allegations are insufficient for the Court to determine
whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

The defendant LLC’s citizenship has been addressed like that of a corporation, which is a
citizen of its state of organization and its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a),
(c)(1); Sanders, 823 F.2d at 215 n.1. However, the Eighth Circuit has held that limited liability
companies 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). Thus, for the LLC
defendant, the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of the limited liability
company to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. The Complaint contains no
allegations concerning the members of the defendant LLC.
The Court will grant plaintiff 21 days to file an amended complaint that alleges facts
showing the existence of the requisite diversity of citizenship of the parties. If plaintiff fails to
timely and fully comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by February 12, 2014, plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint which shall allege facts establishing the citizenship of each of the defendant LLC’s
members.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this
order, this matter will be dismissed 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 22nd day of January, 2014.

___________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE