Forward Air, Inc. v. Serpro, Inc.

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by February 3, 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 ma y be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the Courts order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, Defendants motion for an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 5.) ( Response to Court due by 2/3/2015.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 1/27/15. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

FORWARD AIR, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERPRO, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-CV-00039-AGF

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 Forward Air, Inc. is a “limited liability company duly organized and existing by
virtue of law with its principal place of business in the state of Tennessee,” and
Defendant SERPRO, Inc. is a “limited liability company doing business in St. Louis

County, State of Missouri, with its principal place of business in this judicial district.”1
(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 both Plaintiff and Defendant.
The complaint contains no allegations concerning the members of either Plaintiff or
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.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by February 3, 2015, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of each party. If

1

Although the case caption lists the parties’ names with the designation “Inc.,” the
body of the complaint alleges that the parties are both limited liability companies. If the
parties are in fact corporations, rather than limited liability companies, Plaintiff should
correct this allegation in its amended complaint.
2

Plaintiff fails to timely and fully comply with this Order, this matter may be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the Court’s order requiring
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to
file an answer to the complaint is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 5.)

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 27th day of January, 2015.

3