Select Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Harrisonville Healthcare, LLC et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend its complaint is GRANTED. Doc. No. 27 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file with the Court a copy of its first amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice to refiling, as appropriate, following service of its first amended complaint. Doc. No. 25 . Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 2/5/2014. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SELECT REHABILITATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BENCHMARK HEALTHCARE OF
HARRISONVILLE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV01971 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint by
interlineation and for default judgment. For the reasons set forth below the motion for leave
to amend will be granted and the motion for default judgment denied without prejudice to
refiling, as appropriate, following service of the first amended complaint.
On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff, Select Rehabilitation, Inc., filed this action naming ten
limited liability companies and a corporation engaged in healthcare management as
Defendants.1 Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $2,000,000.00 under an allegedly
defaulted promissory note. See Doc. No. 1. The record reflects timely and proper service on
all Defendants, but Defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or
before October 30, 2013, the time allotted for response under Federal Rule of Civil

1

These Defendants are: Benchmark Healthcare of Harrisonville, LLC; Harrisonville
Healthcare, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare of Lee’s Summit, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare
of Lexington, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare of Raytown, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare of
Monet, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare of St. Charles, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare of
Willowbrooke, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare of Wildwood, LLC; Benchmark Healthcare
Group, Inc.; and Benchmark Healthcare Management, LLC.

Procedure 12(a)(1)(A). See Doc. Nos. 7-17. Thereafter, on November 18, 2013, Plaintiff
moved for a clerk’s entry of default and on December 18, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered a
default in this matter. See Doc. Nos. 20 & 24. On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed its
motion for default judgment, see Doc. No. 25, and on January 9, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel
moved to amend the complaint by interlineation to correct a “scrivener’s error” in Paragraph
13 of the original complaint.2
Paragraph 13 of the complaint reads: “[t]his Court has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) as there is complete diversity between the parties and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Doc. No. 1 at ¶13. Plaintiff requests leave to
amend the complaint to read instead:
[t]his Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1332(a)(1) as there is complete diversity between the parties
because Select’s principal place of business is located in the
state of Illinois, Defendant Benchmark Healthcare Group, Inc.’s
principal place of business is located in the state of Missouri and
upon information and belief, none of the members of any of the
limited liability company Defendants are citizens of Illinois, and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Doc. No. 27.
Essentially, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to further specify the citizenship of
the parties, in particular, that of the limited liability company defendants.
“Diversity jurisdiction requires ‘complete diversity, that is where no defendant holds
citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.”’ Cascades Development
of Minnesota, LLC v. National Specialty Ins., 675 F.3d 1095, 1098 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Junk v. Terminix Int’l Co., 628 F.3d 439, 445 (8th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 94
2

After the filing of the motion for default judgment and before the filing of the motion
for leave to amend, this action was reassigned to this Court.
-2-

(2011) (internal quotation omitted)). Moreover, the citizenship of the members of a limited
liability company is considered for purposes of determining the citizenship of the parties
under the statutory provision providing for federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of
diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See id.
Therefore, upon review of the proposed amendment and in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 15(a)(2), the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to
clarify the basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See id. (noting, in
addition, that a district court has authority to require such clarification).
Inasmuch as Plaintiff will need to serve Defendants with the first amended complaint,
the Court will deny Plaintiff’s pending motion for default judgment without prejudice to
refiling, as appropriate, following service of the first amended complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint
is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 27.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file with the Court a copy of its
first amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is
DENIED without prejudice to refiling, as appropriate, following service of its first
amended complaint. (Doc. No. 25.)
________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of February, 2014.

-3-