Coady v. Fiserv Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 21, 2015, defendant shall file its Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by October 1, 2015, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing his own citizenship and the citizenship of each defendant. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 9/14/15. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY ELLEN COADY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FISERVE SOLUTIONS, Inc., et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV1067 CDP

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). “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 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 Mary Ellen Coady is a “resident of Missouri.” It
also alleges that defendant Gal Combs Oglesby is a resident of Texas. Finally, the
Complaint alleges that Fiserv Solutions, LLC, is a “Wisconsin Corporation” with a
principal office in Wisconsin. These allegations are insufficient for the Court to
determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
“A complaint that alleges merely residency, rather than citizenship, is
insufficient to plead diverse citizenship.” 15 Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31;
see Sanders, 823 F.2d at 215 & n.1. Because plaintiff only alleges his own
residency and the residency of defendant Oglesby, he does not allege their
citizenship.
Similar deficiencies appear with regard to Fiserv Solutions. First, it is
unclear whether that entity is a corporation, as listed in the caption and stated in
count 5 of the Complaint, or whether it is a limited liability company, as asserted
by the defendants and stated in count 5 of the Complaint.
Assuming that Fiserv Solutions is an LLC, as alleged by the defendants, it is
a citizen of every state of which any member is a citizen. See GMAC Commercial
Credit, LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004). The
Complaint contains no allegations concerning the members of Fiserv Solutions or
their citizenship. Nor has Fiserv Solutions complied with Local Rule 3-2.09,
which requires “[e]very non-governmental organizational party” to file a

-2-

Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate “with the party’s first pleading or
entry of appearance.” Local R. 3-2.09(A). This certificate must identify each
member and each member’s state of citizenship. Local R. 3-2.09(B).
The Court will grant Fiserv Solutions until September 21, 2015 to file its
Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate. Upon filing of that certificate,
plaintiff shall have until October 1, 2015 to file an amended complaint that alleges
facts showing the existence of the requisite diversity of citizenship of the parties.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 21, 2015, defendant shall
file its Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by October 1, 2015, plaintiff shall file
an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing his own citizenship and the
citizenship of each defendant.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of September, 2015.

-3-