Williams Scotsman, Inc. v. TRS Range Services, LLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by February 6, 2015, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of each party. If Plaintiff fails to timely and fully comply with this Order, this matter may be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Response to Court due by 2/6/2015.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 1/30/2015. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.,
TRS RANGE SERVICES, LLC,
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).
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 Williams Scotsman, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of
business in Maryland and that Defendant TRS Range Services, LLC “is a limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Idaho with it principal
place of business in Eagle, ID.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1.)
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(c)(1). That is incorrect. Rather, a limited liability
company is a citizen of every state of which any member is a citizen. GMAC
Commercial Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004).
Thus, in order to determine whether complete diversity of citizenship exists in this case,
the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of Defendant. The complaint
contains no allegations concerning the members of Defendant, or their citizenship.
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 may dismiss this
matter without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by February 6, 2015, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of each party. If
Plaintiff fails to timely and fully comply with this Order, this matter may be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of January, 2015.
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?