Geitz et al v. Janssen Research & Development LLC, et al
ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by February 27, 2015, plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiffs do not timely and fully comply with this order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending further order of this Court. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 2/20/15. (KXS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
BERNADINE D. & CLARENCE GEITZ,
JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT )
LLC, et al.,
No. 4:15-CV-325 CAS
ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION
This diversity 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[.]” 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), and the burden of proving
all jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting jurisdiction, here the plaintiffs. See McNutt v.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). “[T]he court may . . .
insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed[.]” Id.
In this case, plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that jurisdiction exists based on diversity of
citizenship. Complaint at 1-2, ¶ 1. Title 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 place of citizenship. 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 defendants Janssen
Research & Development LLC, f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and
Development LLC (“Janssen R&D”), and Janssen Ortho LLC, the Court must examine the
citizenship of each member of the limited liability company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
See GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir.
The complaint alleges that defendant Janssen R&D is organized under the laws of New
Jersey and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Complaint at 6-7, ¶ 29. The complaint
alleges that defendant Janssen Ortho LLC is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its
principal place of business in Puerto Rico. Id. at 8, ¶ 41.1 “[A]n LLC is not necessarily a citizen of
its state of organization but is a citizen of each state in which its members are citizens.” GMAC,
357 F.3d at 829. The complaint contains no allegations as to the relevant jurisdictional facts
concerning defendants Janssen R&D and Janssen Ortho LLC’s citizenship: the state(s) of which
each of their members are citizens, as required by GMAC. For these defendants’ members that are
limited liability companies, partnerships or limited partnerships, information concerning their
underlying members or partners must be alleged.2
As a result, the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations of jurisdictional facts to
establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs will be required to amend their complaint
In contrast, plaintiffs allege on information and belief that defendant Bayer Corporation, an
Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, is the sole member of
defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC. Complaint at 11, ¶¶ 63-64.
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.
to correct this deficiency. Plaintiffs will be granted seven (7) days to file an amended complaint that
alleges facts showing complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. Plaintiffs’ failure to
timely and fully comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by February 27, 2015, plaintiffs shall file an Amended
Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiffs do not timely and fully comply with this
order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
further order of this Court.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of February, 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?