Buckhorn Cattle Company et al v. Williams et al

Filing 3

ORDER Directing Defendant to File an Amended Notice of Removal within 7 days to allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 11/7/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

BUCKHORN CATTLE COMPANY,
an Oklahoma General Partnership, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-1212-D

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and finds insufficient allegations to
establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as asserted by
Defendants.1 See Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1], ¶ 6. Specifically, Defendants fail to
provide necessary facts regarding the citizenship of Plaintiff Buckhorn Cattle Company,
which is alleged to be a general partnership. The citizenship of a partnership is the
citizenship of all partners. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). The
pleadings in this case neither identify Buckhorn Cattle Company’s partners nor allege their
citizenship. Thus, no factual basis for diversity jurisdiction is shown.

1

The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists”
and may raise the issue sua sponte at any time. 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d
1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants shall file an amended Notice of
Removal to allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction within 7 days from the date of this
Order.2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2014.

2

Defendants need not re-file the exhibits attached to the Notice of Removal but may incorporate
them by reference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c).
2