McKissock, LLC v. Martin
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remand this action to the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (St. Louis County) from which it was removed. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 8/15/16. (KXS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
KAREN TRACY MARTIN,
Case No. 4:16-CV-1314 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte to determine whether subject
matter jurisdiction exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time . . . it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.”); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648, 181 L. Ed. 2d 619 (2012)
(“When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to
consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not
Plaintiff McKissock, LLC, filed this action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, on July 21, 2016, alleging that its former employee Karen Tracy Martin had
gone to work for a direct competitor in violation of a noncompetition agreement
and, furthermore, had retained plaintiff’s confidential information and trade secrets,
data, and a laptop and other equipment. On August 1, 2016, the Circuit Court
granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, to remain in effect until
August 16, 2016, when the matter was set for hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction. The Court also granted plaintiff’s motion for expedited
discovery. Plaintiff served notice of video deposition of defendant for August 12,
On August 11, 2016, defendant removed the matter to this Court, invoking
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). According to the notice of removal, defendant is a citizen of
Texas, and plaintiff “is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
of business in Missouri.” The identities and citizenship of all of plaintiff’s members
are not alleged in the notice of removal or complaint.
An action is removable to federal court if the claims originally could have
been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591
F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2010). The defendant bears the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Altimore v. Mount Mercy
Coll., 420 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2005). A case must be remanded if, at any time,
it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Any doubts about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of
remand. Wilkinson v. Shackelford, 478 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2007).
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “[w]hile humans and corporations can
assert their own citizenship, other entities take the citizenship of their members.”
Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1014 (2016). The
Supreme Court has held: “So long as such an entity is unincorporated, we apply our
oft-repeated rule that it possesses the citizenship of all its members.” Id. at 1016
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Limited liability corporations are subject to
that rule; they are citizens of each state of which any of their members are citizens.
GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th
corporation’s members is a prerequisite to establishing subject matter jurisdiction
based on diversity. See id. Because the complaint and the notice of removal do not
allege the identities and citizenship of each member of McKissock, LLC, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and this action must be remanded.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remand this
action to the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (St. Louis County) from
which it was removed.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of August, 2016.
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?