Nautilus Insurance Company v. Colonial Management Group, LP et al

Filing 4

PROCEDURAL ORDER re subject matter jurisdiction. Parties to respond as outlined by January 4, 2013. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Nautilus Insurance Co.
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-488-JL

Colonial Management Group, LP, et al.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Co. filed this suit against
defendants Colonial Management Group, LP, Metro Treatment Center
of New Hampshire, Karl Lanocha, and Shawna Palmer in this court.
Nautilus’s claims arise under state law; Nautilus asserts that
this court has jurisdiction based upon diversity of the parties.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).1

The complaint alleges that (1)

Nautilus is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of
business in Arizona; (2) Colonial Management Group and Metro
Treatment Center are Delaware limited partnerships, each with a
principal place of business in Florida; and (3) Lanocha and
Palmer are residents of New Hampshire.

1

The complaint also asserts that this court has jurisdiction
under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Compl. ¶
6. The Court of Appeals has held, however, that this “Act merely
makes available an added anodyne for disputes that come within
the federal courts’ jurisdiction on some other basis,” such that
“there must be an independent basis of jurisdiction before a
federal court may entertain a declaratory-judgment action.”
Alberto San, Inc. v. Consejo De Titulares Del Condominio San
Alberto, 522 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (internal quotations,
citations, and alterations omitted).

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, only the first of
these allegations sufficiently identifies a party’s citizenship:
a corporation like Nautilus is deemed to be a citizen of both its
state of incorporation and the state in which it has its
principal place of business.
303, 306 (2006).

Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S.

Limited partnerships such as Colonial

Management Group and Metro Treatment Centers, however, are deemed
to be citizens of the same states as each of their partners.
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569
(2004).

The complaint does not contain any information regarding

the citizenship of the partners of either of these defendants.
And the citizenship of individuals such as Lanocha and Palmer is
determined not by residence, but by domicile, i.e., “the place
where one is present and intends to stay.”

Rodríguez v. Señor

Frog’s de la Isla, Inc., 642 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 2011).

“A

bare statement of residence or address only informs the Court as
to where the plaintiff lives, not of which state he is a citizen
and domiciliary.”

Lefkowitz v. Lider, 443 F. Supp. 352, 355 (D.

Mass. 1978).
Based upon the information currently before it, then, the
court cannot be certain of the citizenship of any of the
defendants.

If any of the defendants are, like Nautilus,

citizens of Arizona, the court will, of course, lack diversity
2

jurisdiction.

Alvarez-Torres v. Ryder Memorial Hosp., Inc., 582

F.3d 47, 53-54 (1st Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, no later than January 4, 2013, Nautilus shall
file an affidavit of jurisdictional facts with the court.

The

affidavit shall describe, to the best of Nautilus’s knowledge or
belief:
1.

The identities and place of citizenship of all members
of Colonial Management Group, LP and Metro Treatment
Center of New Hampshire as of the date this action was
filed; and

2.

The places of domicile of Karl Lanocha and Shawna
Palmer as of the date this action was filed.

In determining the place of citizenship of the members of
Colonial Management Group, LP and Metro Treatment Center of New
Hampshire, Nautilus is reminded that, if any of those parties’
partners are themselves unincorporated entities, then the
citizenship of each of the members or partners of those entities
must also be determined.

See D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities

Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124, 126-27 (1st Cir. 2011).
Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal
of the case for failure to show subject-matter jurisdiction.

3

SO ORDERED.

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

December 14, 2012

William L. Boesch, Esq.

4