Bohl v. Kelly Services, Inc. et al

Filing 14

PROCEDURAL ORDER re subject matter jurisdiction. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Karl F. Bohl
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-357

Kelly Services, Inc.
and Freudenberg Nok
General Partnership
PROCEDURAL ORDER
Plaintiff Karl F. Bohl commenced this action against
defendants Kelly Services, Inc. and Freudenberg NOK General
Partnership in Merrimack County Superior Court, alleging statelaw claims of wrongful termination, intentional interference with
contractual relations, and violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 275-E:2.

With Freudenberg’s consent, Kelly Services removed

the case to this court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441, invoking its
diversity jurisdiction, see id. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

The

notice of removal states that (1) Bohl is a citizen of New
Hampshire, (2) Kelly Services is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Michigan, and (3) echoing the
allegations of the complaint, “Freudenberg NOK General
Partnership is a corporation incorporated in the State of
Delaware with its principal place of business in . . . Michigan.”
A partnership, however, is not a corporation, and the two
types of entities are treated differently for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction.

While a corporation has the citizenship

of its state of incorporation and principal place of business,

id. § 1332(c)(1), a partnership has the citizenship of each of
its general and limited partners, Carden v. Arkoma Associates,
494 U.S. 185 (1990).

The notice of removal says nothing about

the citizenship of any of Freudenberg’s partners and, as a
result, fails to show diversity jurisdiction.

See D.B. Zwirn

Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 125
(1st Cir. 2011).

Indeed, if any one of Freudenberg’s partners

is, like Bohl, a citizen of New Hampshire, then the parties will
be deemed citizens of the same state, and the court will lack
diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, at the upcoming preliminary pretrial
conference, counsel for the defendants--who, having removed the
case to this court, bear the burden of demonstrating its subjectmatter jurisdiction, see, e.g., Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 645
F.3d 81, 84 (1st Cir. 2001)--shall be prepared to proffer the
identity and citizenship of each of Fruedenberg’s general and
limited partners.

See D.B. Zwirn, 661 F.3d at 125-27.

In

determining the place of citizenship of Freudenberg’s partners,
counsel are reminded that, if any of those partners are
themselves partnerships, limited liability companies, or other
unincorporated entities, then the citizenship of each of the
partners or members of each of those entities must also be
determined.

See id. at 126-27.

The defendants shall file an

affidavit or affidavits setting forth these jurisdictional facts

2

within 10 days of the conference.

Failure to comply with this

order will result in remand of the case to the Superior Court
failure to show subject-matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

November 9, 2012

Lauren S. Irwin, Esq.
Rick J. Patterson, Esq.
Steven M. Potter, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Siegel, Esq.
Mark T. Broth, Esq.

3