Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company v. Combs et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 25, 2013, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of each defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comp ly with this order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice 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. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/18/13. (KXS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DANISHA COMBS, et al.,
No. 4:13-CV-1813 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This 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). “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. 2013).
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. The Complaint alleges that plaintiff Metropolitan Casualty
Insurance Company is a Rhode Island corporation with its principal place of business in Rhode
Island. It further alleges that defendant Danisha Combs is a “resident of St. Clair County, State of
Illinois.” Complaint at 1. It also alleges that defendant E & L, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Illinois. Id. at 2. These allegations are insufficient
for the Court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
Plaintiff apparently assumes that a limited liability company is treated like a corporation and
thus 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. That is incorrect. 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
defendant E & L, LLC, 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 E & L, LLC or their citizenship.
The Complaint alleges that the individual defendant Combs resides in Illinois, but does not
allege facts concerning her citizenship. “A complaint that alleges merely residency, rather than
citizenship, is insufficient to plead diverse citizenship.” 15 Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31; see
Sanders, 823 F.2d at 215 n.1.
The Court will grant plaintiff seven (7) 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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 25, 2013, plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of each defendant.
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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
further order of this Court.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of September, 2013.
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?