Sample Farms LLC et al v. ConocoPhillips Company

Filing 5

ORDER directing the Defendant to file an Amended Notice of Removal that states a sufficient factual basis for diversity jurisdiction within 14 days re 1 Notice of Removal, filed by ConocoPhillips Company. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/11/2015. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SAMPLE FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-231-D

ORDER
Upon examination of the Notice of Removal, the Court finds insufficient factual
allegations to show the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), as asserted by Defendant.1 The Notice of Removal
states there is complete diversity of citizenship because Defendant is a citizen of Delaware
and Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), and “[b]ased on the allegations in Plaintiffs’
Petition, Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of the State of Oklahoma. Exhibit1 at ¶ 1.” See
Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1], ¶ 20. However, the Petition does not identify the members
of Sample Farms, LLC, and it states only that “Plaintiffs are residence [sic] of Texas County,
Oklahoma.” See Petition [Doc. No. 1-1], ¶ 1. This allegation does not establish Plaintiffs’
citizenship; merely alleging a place of residence is not sufficient. See Whitelock v.

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).

Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514-15 (10th Cir. 1972); see also Penteco Corp. Ltd.
P’ship–1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc.., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991).2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant shall file an amended notice of
removal that states a sufficient factual basis for diversity jurisdiction within 14 days from the
date of this Order.3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2015.

2

Every federal appellate court to consider the question has concluded that a limited liability
company should be treated like a limited partnership or other unincorporated association under Carden v.
Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). See Conagra Foods, Inc. v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 776
F.3d 1175, 1176 n.2 (10th Cir. 2015); Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir.
2010) (“every federal court of appeals to address the question has concluded that a limited liability company,
as an unincorporated business entity, should be treated as a partnership for purposes of establishing
citizenship”); Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008) (“All federal appellate
courts that have addressed the issue have reached the same conclusion: . . . the citizenship of a LLC is
determined by the citizenship of all of its members.”).
3

Defendant 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