Peelle v. Walmart Inc. et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her #1 Complaint no later than April 4, 2019. (jcm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MARIA PEELLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 19-cv-0171 SMV/GJF

WALMART INC., WAL-MART
STORES EAST, INC., and WAL-MART
STORES EAST, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte, following its review of the Complaint
[Doc. 1], filed by Plaintiff on March 4, 2019. 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 Complaint, the applicable law, and being
otherwise fully advised in the premises, concludes that the Complaint fails to allege the amount in
controversy and the necessary facts of citizenship in order to sustain diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than April 4, 2019,
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 March 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Complaint. [Doc. 1]. She alleges that the Court has
diversity jurisdiction over the matter. Id. at 2. She asserts that she “is a resident of Curry County,
New Mexico.” Id. at 1. She asserts that Defendant Walmart Inc. is “incorporated in Delaware and

doing business in New Mexico.” Id. Next, she claims that Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.,
is a corporation “incorporated in Arkansas and doing business in New Mexico.” Id. at 2. Finally,
she alleges that Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited Partnership, is “a foreign limited
partnership doing business in New Mexico.”

Id.

Plaintiff does not allege an amount in

controversy. See [Doc. 1].
LEGAL STANDARD
A plaintiff is required to assert the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction in her complaint.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Additionally, the district court must be satisfied that, indeed, it has subject-matter
jurisdiction. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269, 1270–71 (10th Cir. 1998).
Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and thus may be raised by the parties or sua sponte
at any time. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
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. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2018). Jurisdiction under § 1332 requires
diversity of citizenship. The party asserting jurisdiction must plead citizenship distinctly and
affirmatively; allegations of residence are not enough. Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century
Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015). Domicile, the equivalent of State citizenship,
requires more than mere residence; domicile exists only when residence is coupled with an
intention to remain in the state indefinitely. Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th
Cir. 2014).

2

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 State
in which it is incorporated and in which it maintains its principal place of business. § 1332(c).
Partnerships, limited partnerships, and limited liability companies, however, are citizens of each
and every State in which any partner or member is a citizen. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S.
185, 195–96 (1990) (stating the citizenship of business entities is determined by the citizenship of
its members); Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C., 781 F.3d at 1234 (remanding for district court to
determine the citizenship of all the members of the plaintiff limited liability company); Penteco
Corp. Ltd. P’ship-1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1522–23 (10th Cir. 1991)
(remanding for district court to determine citizenship of all of the partners of the plaintiff limited
partnership).
Here, the facts set forth in the Complaint do not sufficiently establish Plaintiff’s citizenship
because they address only her residence. Further, the allegations fail to establish the citizenship
of Defendants Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., because Plaintiff fails to allege their
principal place of business. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish the citizenship of Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited Partnership, because they fail to allege the citizenship of each of
its partners. Finally, Plaintiff fails to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists because she does
not allege the amount in controversy. See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 952 (10th Cir.
2008) (stating that the party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to establish both the
diversity-of-citizenship and amount-in-controversy requirements).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall
amend her Complaint to properly allege diversity of citizenship, if such allegations can be made
3

in compliance with the dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than
April 4, 2019. Specifically, Plaintiff must allege the following:
•

Plaintiff’s domicile;

•

The principal place of business of Defendants Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores
East, Inc.;

•

The citizenship of each and every partner of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East,
Limited Partnership; and

•

The amount in controversy.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such an amended complaint is not filed by April 4,
2019, the Court may dismiss this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge

4