OptimizeRx Corporation, a Nevada company v. LDM Group, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by March 31, 2015, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of each defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this Order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/23/15. (JWD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LDM GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 4:15 CV 501 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals 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). “A plaintiff who seeks to invoke diversity
jurisdiction of the federal courts must plead citizenship distinctly and affirmatively.” 15 James
Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31 (3d ed. 2013).
The complaint in this case alleges 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 OptimizeRx
Corporation is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. It further
alleges that defendant LDM Group, LLC is a “limited liability company organized and existing
under Missouri law with its registered office” in Missouri. It also alleges that defendant PDR
Network, LLC, “is a Delaware liability company with its principal place of business” in New
Jersey. These allegations are insufficient for the Court to determine whether it has diversity
jurisdiction over this matter.
To establish complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must include factual
allegations of each party’s state of citizenship. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216
(8th Cir. 1987). For diversity jurisdiction purposes, “an LLC’s citizenship is that of its
members.” GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829
(8th Cir. 2004). Thus, the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of the defendant
limited liability companies to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. The complaint
contains no allegations concerning the citizenship of the members of defendants LDM Group,
LLC and PDR Network, LLC.
As a result, the Court is unable to determine whether there is complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties and whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action. The Court will grant plaintiff ten (10) days to file an amended complaint that alleges
facts showing the existence of the requisite diversity of citizenship of the parties. Plaintiff’s
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 March 31, 2015, plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of each defendant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with
this Order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of March, 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?