Kelley et al v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP et al

Filing 6

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Because the Court is not satisfied that diversity of citizenship has been established, by 4/15/2020, defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP shall submit an affidavit declaring its corporate structure, as well as the identity and domicile of its members and sub-members (if any) and/or its general and limited partners, at the time this suit was filed. Judge Sara Lioi on 3/31/2020. (D,S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JUDITH KELLEY, et al.,
PLAINTIFFS,
vs.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:20-cv-0621
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

On March 24, 2020, defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”) removed the abovecaptioned action from the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, Ohio allegedly on the basis
of diversity of citizenship. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal [“Removal”], ¶ 6.) This Court is not
satisfied that diversity of citizenship has been established.
“[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have an independent duty to
determine whether they have jurisdiction in cases before them and to ‘police the boundaries of
their own jurisdiction.’” Davis v. Sessions, No. 1:17CV1354, 2017 WL 4810620, at *2 (N.D. Ohio
Oct. 25, 2017) (quoting Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assoc. Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2006)).
Walmart alleges that it is “a limited liability company organized, registered and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware [with] its principal place of business in Arkansas.”
(Removal ¶ 5.) But, for purposes of diversity, “a limited liability company has the citizenship of
each of its members.” Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009).
Therefore, where, as here, “‘diversity jurisdiction is invoked in a case in which a limited liability
company is a party, the court needs to know the citizenship of each member of the company. And

because a member of a limited liability company may itself have multiple members—and thus
may itself have multiple citizenships—the federal court needs to know the citizenship of each
“sub-member” as well.’” Novia Commc’ns, LLC v. Weatherby, No. 19-3421, 2020 WL 289199, at
*3 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020) (quoting Delay, 585 F.3d at 1005); see also Gen. Tech. Applications,
Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 121 (4th Cir. 2004) (a limited liability company “is an
unincorporated association, akin to a partnership for diversity purposes, whose citizenship is that
of its members.”).
The Court also notes the “LP” designation in Walmart’s name in the case caption. As with
a limited liability company, “[f]or purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, a limited
partnership is deemed to be a citizen of every state where its general and limited partners reside.”
Hooper v. Wolfe, 396 F.3d 744, 748 (6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original); see also V & M Star,
LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 355 (6th Cir. 2010) (“A limited partnership is a citizen of
each state in which its general and limited partners, including general and limited partners who are
partners of other partners in [a] multi-tiered structure, hold citizenship.”) (citation omitted).
Diversity jurisdiction exists only when “no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the
same state.” Curry v. United States Bulk Transp., Inc., 462 F.3d 536, 540 (6th Cir. 2006). “If even
one member or sub-member of an LLC [or an LP] is non-diverse, ‘then complete diversity, and
with it federal jurisdiction, would be destroyed.’” Aquasea Grp., LLC v. Singletary, No. 4:13-CV2286, 2013 WL 5781192, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2013 (quoting Delay, 585 F.3d at 1005)).
Accordingly, on or before April 15, 2020, Walmart will be required to submit an affidavit
declaring its corporate structure, as well as the identity and domicile of its members and submembers (if any) and/or its general and limited partners, at the time this suit was filed. See Kaiser
v. Loomis, 391 F.2d 1007, 1009 (6th Cir. 1968) (“‘Citizenship’ for purposes of the diversity statute
2

is determined as of the date of commencement of the action.”) (citing Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S.
91, 93 n.1, 77 S. Ct. 1112, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1205 (1957)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2020
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3