Roberts v. General Motors LLC

Filing 83

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by October 8, 2015, plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this Order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Response to Court due by 10/1/2015.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/1/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LAURETTA ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-541 CAS

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION
This diversity matter is before the Court on review of the file. 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). Statutes conferring diversity
jurisdiction are strictly construed, Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992), and
the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting jurisdiction, here the plaintiff.
See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). “[T]he
court may . . . insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed[.]” Id.
In this case, plaintiff’s complaint asserts that federal jurisdiction exists based on diversity
of citizenship. Complaint at 2, ¶ 5. Complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and
defendants is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Buckley v. Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6
(8th Cir. 1991). To establish complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must include factual
allegations of each party’s state of citizenship, including allegations of any corporate party’s state
of incorporation and principal place of business. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216
(8th Cir. 1987); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Different allegations are required to properly plead the citizenship of a limited liability
company (“LLC”). “An LLC’s citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, is the citizenship
of each of its members.” E3 Biofuels, LLC v. Biothane, LLC, 781 F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 2015)
(quoted case omitted). Thus, for limited liability companies such as defendant General Motors LLC,
the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of the limited liability company to
determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction. See GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard
Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004) (“GMAC”). For any members of LLCs that
are themselves limited liability companies, partnerships or limited partnerships, information
concerning the underlying members or partners must be alleged.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she is a “resident of St. Louis County, Missouri.”
Complaint at 1, ¶ 1. This allegation is deficient because plaintiff does not allege her state of
citizenship. It is well established that an allegation of residence is not the equivalent of an allegation
of citizenship, Sanders, 823 F.2d at 216, and is insufficient to allege citizenship for diversity
jurisdiction purposes. Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2014).
The Eighth Circuit has instructed that the distinction between residence and citizenship is “not a
mere technicality.” Id. at 777. “In both common parlance and legal usage, ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’
have overlapping but distinct meanings. See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 1502 (10th ed. 2014)
(explaining ‘a resident is not necessarily either a citizen or a domiciliary’); New Oxford American
Dictionary 1485 (3d ed. 2010) (defining ‘resident’ as ‘a person who lives somewhere permanently
or on a long-term basis’ (emphasis added)).” Id. at 778.
Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges that defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) is a
“Delaware limited liability company with its primary office in Detroit, Michigan.” Complaint at 1,
¶ 2. However, “an LLC is not necessarily a citizen of its state of organization but is a citizen of each
2

state in which its members are citizens.” GMAC, 357 F.3d at 829. The complaint is silent about
GM’s members and their states of citizenship.
The Court believes that complete diversity of citizenship exists in this case, based in part on
GM’s Disclosure of Corporation Interests Certificate (Doc. 10), which states that GM’s sole member
is General Motors Holdings LLC, and that General Motors Holdings LLC’s sole member is General
Motors Company, a Delaware corporation.1 However, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction,
plaintiff bears the burden to establish complete diversity of citizenship. See Branson Label, Inc. v.
City of Branson, Mo., 793 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2015). “When jurisdiction is based on diversity
of citizenship, the pleadings . . . must set forth with specificity the citizenship of the parties.”
Barclay Square Properties v. Midwest Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Minneapolis, 893 F.2d 968,
969 (8th Cir. 1990). Here, plaintiff fails to meet her burden because the complaint does not contain
sufficient allegations of citizenship to establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff will be ordered to amend her complaint within seven (7) days, solely for the purpose
of alleging jurisdictional facts to show complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Plaintiff’s failure to timely and fully comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by October 8, 2015, plaintiff shall file an Amended
Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action.

1

GM’s Disclosure of Corporation Interests Certificate does not indicate the state of General
Motors Company’s principal place of business.
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this
Order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 1st day of October, 2015.

4