Billy Matthews Production LLC v. Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions LP

Filing 7

ORDER directing Defendant to file an Amended Notice of Removal within 14 days to cure deficiency re 1 Notice of Removal, filed by Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions LP. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 9/7/2016. (mb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BILLY MATTHEWS PRODUCTION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. OKLAHOMA ENERGY ACQUISITIONS, LP Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-16-1015-D ORDER Upon examination of the Notice of Removal, the Court finds insufficient allegations to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), as asserted by Defendant.1 Defendant states it is a Texas limited partnership with a principal place of business in Texas and that Plaintiff is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Oklahoma. Plaintiff’s pleading contains similar allegations. For purposes of determining citizenship, a limited partnership is not treated like a corporation under § 1332(c)(1). A partnership has the citizenship of all partners, including limited partners. See Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); see also Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1015 (2016). Similarly, a limited liability company is treated like an unincorporated association under Carden, and has the citizenship of all members. See Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Surety Co.,781 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); see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 506 (2006). F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015); see also Mgmt. Nominees, Inc. v. Alderney Inv., LLC, 813 F.3d 1321, 1322 (10th Cir. 2016). Neither the Notice of Removal nor the petition identifies Defendant’s partners or Plaintiff’s members. No allegations regarding the citizenship of Defendant’s partners or Plaintiff’s members are stated. Therefore, Defendant has failed to demonstrate diversity of citizenship between the parties or to establish a basis of federal jurisdiction.2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant is directed to file an amended notice of removal within 14 days of this date to cure the deficiency identified in this Order.3 IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of September, 2016. 2 Defendant has also filed a Corporate Disclosure Statement [Doc. No. 5], which does not comply with LCvR7.1.1. It does not sufficiently identify the citizenship of all partners, which include limited liability companies and limited partnerships. In this situation, the constituent members and partners must be identified. See Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (“an LLC’s jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of each of its members . . . and, if those members have members, the citizenship of those members as well”). 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?