Bricktown Springhill Suites v. Chamberlin Oklahoma LLC

Filing 3

ORDER that Plaintiff shall file an amended pleading to allege existence of diversity jurisdiction not later than 9/2/2016. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 8/26/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRICKTOWN SPRINGHILL SUITES,1
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAMBERLIN OKLHOMA, LLC
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-960-D

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and has found insufficient factual allegations
to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under
28 U.S.C. § 1332, as asserted.2 The Complaint identifies the plaintiff as “Bricktown
Springhill Suites;” this entity is not otherwise described, nor is its form of organization
identified.

The Complaint indicates the entity is acting through an “authorized

representative, Kamal Patel,” who has signed the pleading in his own name. See Compl.
[Doc. No. 1], pp.1, 8. Perhaps the entity is a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Patel, but this
fact is not stated. The Complaint fails to allege any facts from which the citizenship of any
business entity or Mr. Patel can be determined.

1

Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), the Court utilizes the caption that appears on the Complaint,
although the entity named as Plaintiff is insufficiently described, as discussed infra.
2

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); see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (federal courts “have an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a
challenge from any party”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appropriate plaintiff shall file an amended
pleading to allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction not later than September 2, 2016.3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2016.

3

The Court also notes that a party who is not a natural person may not appear pro se or without
counsel. See LCvR17.1; see also Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1255 (10th Cir. 2006). If this case is to
proceed with a business entity as the named plaintiff, the pleading must be signed by counsel, who must enter
an appearance consistent with LCvR83.4.

2