Palm Beach SA LP v. Houston Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint to sufficiently allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction within 14 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/30/17. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PALM BEACH SA, LP,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-330-D

ORDER
Upon examination of the Complaint, the Court finds insufficient allegations to
establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as asserted
by Plaintiff.1 Specifically, the Complaint fails to provide necessary facts regarding the
citizenship of Plaintiff, which is identified as a limited partnership. The citizenship of a
limited partnership is the citizenship of all partners, including both general partners and
limited partners. Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); see Grynberg
v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 906-07 (10th Cir. 2015) (applying
Carden to unitholders of Delaware master limited partnership). The Complaint neither
identifies Plaintiff’s partners nor alleges their citizenship.

Thus, no factual basis for

diversity jurisdiction is apparent.2

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).
2

With the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a disclosure statement that fails to comply with LCvR7.1.1
in that it also does not identify the partners of the partnership.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint to
sufficiently allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction within 14 days from the date of
this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2017.

2