Brennan Group, LLC v. American Consolidated Natural Resources, Inc.

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall file an Amended Notice of Removal no later than Tuesday, September 20, 2022. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to limit access to the original Notice of Removal, Doc. #1 , to case participants only. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17(A)(5). (Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 9/20/2022.) Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 9/16/2022. (TMT)

Case: 4:22-cv-00973-MTS Doc. #: 5 Filed: 09/16/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 96

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRENNAN GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN CONSOLIDATED NATURAL
RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:22-cv-00973-MTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Court finds that Defendant has
failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S.
77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”); Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.,
745 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting “party seeking removal has the burden to establish
federal subject matter jurisdiction”). Defendant removed this action from Saint Louis County
Circuit Court claiming that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. [1]
¶ 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (allowing removal of any civil action over which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction). Though Defendant gives no subsection, it
appears to be advancing diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1).
In order for this Court to have diversity jurisdiction over this case under § 1332(a)(1),
besides the amount in controversy needing to exceed $75,000, Plaintiff must be completely
diverse from Defendant in such a way that Plaintiff is not a citizen of any state of which
Defendant is a citizen. Wilkerson v. Mo. Dep’t of Mental Health, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1080

Case: 4:22-cv-00973-MTS Doc. #: 5 Filed: 09/16/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 97

(E.D. Mo. 2003). Defendant, though, did not establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. Defendant is
correct that, since Plaintiff is a limited liability company, its citizenship is determined by the
citizenship of its members. See GMAC Com. Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d
827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, an LLC’s citizenship is the
citizenship of all its members). But Defendant failed to establish the citizenship of the individual
it alleges is Plaintiff’s “sole member” because Defendant alleged only where the alleged sole
member “resides.” 1 Doc. [1] ¶ 9. Plaintiff did not allege of what state that individual is a citizen.
See Hargett v. RevClaims, LLC, 854 F.3d 962, 965 (8th Cir. 2017) (“A complaint or notice of
removal resting on residency . . . will not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. This
rule is not new.” (internal citation omitted)); see also Hill v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 1:21cv-00141-SRC, 2021 WL 8444011, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 23, 2021) (explaining that alleging
only “that the members of [the] LLC ‘reside in’ North Carolina . . . does not suffice” to establish
the LLC’s citizenship and remanding action to state court without opportunity to amend). 2
The Notice of Removal also is defective for at least one other reason. Defendant was
required to prove the parties were diverse “both when the plaintiff initiate[d] the action in state
court and when the defendant file[d] the notice of removal in federal court.” Chavez-Lavagnino
v. Motivation Educ. Training, Inc., 714 F.3d 1055, 1056 (8th Cir. 2013); accord Reece v. Bank of

In its Notice of Removal, Defendant lists the full address of the individual it alleges is Plaintiff’s sole member.
Because that individual is not a party to this case, Defendant must not include the individual’s complete address.
E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17(A)(5) (“The home address of a non-party should not appear in any filing. If a home address
must be included, only the city and state may be listed.”).
2
To be sure, Defendant does state that “the Brennan Group is a citizen of the State of Missouri for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction.” Doc. [1] ¶ 10. But that conclusory statement cannot, on its own, establish diversity. See
Villareal v. B&C Contracting Specialist Inc., 4:19-cv-2851-RLW, 2020 WL 2088341, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 30,
2020) (“To establish complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must include factual allegations of each party’s
state of citizenship[.]” (emphasis added)); McMahon v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 4:18-cv-505-CAS, 2018 WL
1744539, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 11, 2018) (noting plaintiff’s “conclusory assertion” was not a “factual allegation
sufficient to establish th[e] defendant’s citizenship”); cf. Glick v. W. Power Sports, Inc., 944 F.3d 714, 717 (8th Cir.
2019) (noting courts “need not accept as true a plaintiff’s conclusory allegations or legal conclusions”).
1

-2-

Case: 4:22-cv-00973-MTS Doc. #: 5 Filed: 09/16/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 98

N.Y. Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding removal defective because defendant’s
notice failed to specify party’s citizenship “when the suit was commenced”).

Defendant

provided no allegations regarding this requirement, which is indispensable to the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction in this case.
If Defendant can establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant must file an
Amended Notice of Removal to correct the jurisdictional defects the Court has identified herein.
See City of St. Louis v. Bindan Corp., 295 F.R.D. 392, 395 (E.D. Mo. 2013). Failure to do so
will result in remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall file an Amended Notice of Removal
no later than Tuesday, September 20, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to limit access to the
original Notice of Removal, Doc. [1], to case participants only. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.17(A)(5).
Dated this 16th day of September, 2022.

MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-