Allen v. DAL Global Services, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by May 19, 2014, defendant DAL Global Services, LLC shall file an Amended Notice of Removal which shall allege facts establishing plaintiffs citizenship and the state(s) of citizenship of each of defendants members , both at the time of filing and the time of removal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if defendant DAL Global Services, LLC 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. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 5/12/2014. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

RENA ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAL GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-204 CAS

ORDER CONCERNING REMOVAL
This matter is before the Court on review of the file following removal. 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). Statutes
conferring diversity jurisdiction are to be strictly construed, Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214,
1215 (8th Cir. 1992), as are removal statutes. Nichols v. Harbor Venture, Inc., 284 F.3d 857, 861
(8th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff initially filed suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, State of Missouri. The
petition alleges state law claims for employment discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights
Act. Defendant DAL Global Services, LLC removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332, 1441 and 1446.
In removal cases, the district court reviews the complaint or petition pending at the time of
removal to determine the existence of jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
303 U.S. 283 (1938). The district court may also look to the notice of removal to determine its

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii) (2011); Ratermann v. Cellco P’ship, 2009 WL 1139232,
at *3 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 28, 2009). The removing defendant, as the party invoking jurisdiction, bears
the burden of proving that all prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Central Iowa Power Co-op.
v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009). “[A]ll
doubts about federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand[.]” Id.
The diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, requires complete diversity of
citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants. 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). For limited liability companies such as defendant, the
Court must examine the citizenship of each member of the limited liability company for purposes
of diversity jurisdiction. GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d
827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004) (“GMAC”). In the case of a removed action, 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. With respect to the parties’ citizenship,
defendant’s removal notice states that plaintiff is a “resident of Missouri” but does not allege facts
concerning plaintiff’s citizenship. Notice of Removal at 2. Rather than allegations of each party’s
state of residence, there must be allegations of each party’s state of citizenship. Sanders, 823 F.2d
at 216; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is well established that an allegation of residence is not the

2

equivalent of an allegation of citizenship, Sanders, 823 F.2d at 216, and does not satisfy the pleading
requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1). Jones v. Hadican, 552 F.2d 249,
251 n.3 (8th Cir. 1977); Pattiz v. Schwartz, 386 F.2d 300, 301 (8th Cir. 1968).
Further, defendant’s Notice of Removal alleges that defendant DAL Global Services, LLC
“is a Delaware limited liability corporation, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.”
Notice of Removal at 2. DAL Global Services, LLC is a limited liability company, not a
corporation, and the Notice of Removal contains no allegations as to the relevant jurisdictional facts
concerning its citizenship, namely, the state(s) of which each of its members were citizens at the
time the petition was filed and at the time of removal, as required by the Eighth Circuit’s GMAC
and Ryan cases. For members that are limited liability companies, partnerships or limited
partnerships, information concerning their underlying members or partners must be alleged.1
The Court will grant defendant seven (7) days in which to file an amended Notice of
Removal alleging 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 Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this Order requires only allegations of the requisite jurisdictional facts. Defendant’s
failure to timely and fully comply with this Order will result in the remand of this case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

1

In Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990), the Supreme Court held that
for diversity purposes, the citizenship of a limited partnership is the citizenship of each of its
partners, both general and limited.
3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by May 19, 2014, defendant DAL Global Services, LLC
shall file an Amended Notice of Removal which shall allege facts establishing plaintiff’s citizenship
and the state(s) of citizenship of each of defendant’s members, both at the time of filing and the time
of removal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if defendant DAL Global Services, LLC 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.

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

12th

day of May, 2014.

4