Brower v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC, may amend its 1 Notice of Removal no later than January 9, 2017. (am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ERLINDA BROWER,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-cv-1334 SMV/LAM

SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, LLC,
and JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte following its review of the Notice of
Removal . . . [Doc. 1], filed by Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC (“Sprouts”) on
December 7, 2016. The Court has a duty to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists
sua sponte. See Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988). The
Court, having considered the Notice of Removal, the underlying Complaint, the applicable law,
and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, concludes that the Notice of Removal fails to
allege the necessary facts of citizenship to sustain diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court
will order Defendant Sprouts to file an amended Notice of Removal no later than January 9,
2017, if the necessary jurisdictional allegations can be made in compliance with the dictates of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2016, Defendant Sprouts removed this case to federal court, asserting
complete diversity between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
[Doc. 1] at 2. In support of its claim of diversity of citizenship, Defendant Sprouts alleges that

Plaintiff is a citizen of New Mexico. Id. Defendant Sprouts—which refers to itself as an “LLC,”
i.e., a limited liability company—further alleges that it “is a Delaware corporation and with its
principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.” Id. However, Defendant makes no allegations
about the citizenship of its members. See id.
LEGAL STANDARD
The federal statute providing for the removal of cases from state to federal court was
intended to restrict rather than enlarge removal rights. Greenshields v. Warren Petroleum Corp.,
248 F.2d 61, 65 (10th Cir. 1957). Federal courts, therefore, are to strictly construe the removal
statutes and to resolve all doubts against removal. Fajen v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., Inc., 683
F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982). The removing party bears the burden of establishing the
requirements for federal jurisdiction. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1290
(10th Cir. 2001).
DISCUSSION
District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between
citizens of different States. § 1332(a). When a plaintiff files a civil action in state court over
which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship, the defendant may remove the action to federal court, provided that no defendant is
a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b).
Determining the citizenship of a limited liability company is different from determining
the citizenship of a corporation under § 1332. A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the
2

state in which it is incorporated and in which it maintains its principal place of business. See
§ 1332(c). Limited liability companies, however, are treated as partnerships for citizenship
purposes and are therefore citizens of each and every state in which any member is a citizen.
Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2015).
Here, the facts set forth in the Notice of Removal [Doc. 1] do not sufficiently establish
the citizenship of Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC. Defendant Sprouts must clarify
whether it is a corporation or a limited liability company. If it is a limited liability company, it
must allege the citizenship of each of its members.
IT

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED,

ADJUDGED,

AND

DECREED

that

Defendant Sprouts must amend the Notice of Removal to properly allege diversity of citizenship,
if such allegations can be made in compliance with the dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, no later than January 9, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such an amended notice is not filed by January 9,
2017, the Court may dismiss this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge

3