Vlahek v. Moto Grille Investors, LLC

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Terminate Case. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on November 21, 2014. (Copy of Memorandum and Order and docket sheet sent this date to: M. Jane Schweitzer, Clerk, Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, 10 North Tucker, St. Louis, MO 63101.)(MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY VLAHEK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MOTO GRILLE INVESTORS, LLC,
d/b/a TRIUMPH GRILL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV1945 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action, recently removed from Missouri state court, is before me on my
own review for jurisdiction. 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).
Plaintiff filed this case in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri, on October 15, 2014. In his petition, plaintiff alleged he is a “resident of
the State of Illinois” and makes no claims as to the citizenship of the defendant,
Moto Grille Investors, LLC. Defendant removed the case on November 19, 2014,

asserting diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1), 1441(a). In that
petition, defendant alleges that it is a citizen of Missouri.
A defendant seeking to “invoke federal jurisdiction through removal
. . . bears the burden of proving that the jurisdictional threshold is satisfied.” Bell
v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009). Removal statutes are strictly
construed, and any doubts about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of
remand. Wilkinson v. Shakelford, 478 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2007).
For diversity jurisdiction to attach, the lawsuit must be between citizens of
different States and the matter in controversy must exceed the sum of $75,000. 28
U.S.C. § 1332. The removal statute prohibits removal from state to federal court
on the grounds of diversity where the removing defendant is a citizen of the forum
state. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis
of the jurisdiction under section 1332 (a) of this title may not be removed if any of
the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the
State in which such action is brought.”).
In its notice of removal, defendant LLC does not allege the citizenship of its
members, which is normally necessary to determine an LLC’s citizenship. See
GMAC Commercial Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 828
(8th Cir. 2004). Defendant does, however, summarily state that it “is a citizen and
resident of the State of Missouri . . . .” This raises a question as to this court’s

-2-

subject-matter jurisdiction, because the suit was filed in Missouri state court and
defendant claims citizenship of that state. On the face of its own removal papers,
defendant has shown that removal is improper, see § 1441 (b), and so I will remand
the case sua sponte.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this is REMANDED to the Circuit Court
for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 21st day of November, 2014.

-3-