GODONOU et al v. RONDO, INC. et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION RE: CERTAIN MOTIONS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 5/31/2012; 6/1/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(tomg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IGNACE E. GODONOU, et al.
RONDO, INC. et al.
May 31, 2012
The plaintiffs move to remand this case to state court
on the ground that the pleadings fail to provide the information
necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction.
defendant Rondo Inc. moves to amend the notice of removal to cure
the defective jurisdictional allegations.
The Court denies the
plaintiffs’ motion and grants the defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff Ignace Godonou alleges that he suffered
injuries when the guillotine of a Rondo Doge bread production
line machine pinned his hand and wrist while he was working at
the LeBus Bakery in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
that the Rondo Doge machine was defective, and that defendant
Erika Record, LLC sold, supplied, or distributed the machine to
The plaintiffs are residents of Pennsylvania, and
do not dispute that they are citizens of Pennsylvania.
Rondo, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of
business in New Jersey.
In their motion to remand, the plaintiffs argue that
the pleadings insufficiently establish diversity of citizenship
because the notice of removal does not set forth the citizenship
of defendant Erika Record, LLC.
The citizenship of a limited
liability company (LLC) is determined by the citizenship of each
of its members for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d
In response to the plaintiffs’ motion to remand,
defendant Rondo, Inc. filed a motion to amend the notice of
The defendant attached an affidavit setting forth the
identity and citizenship of the members of Erika Record, LLC.
The affidavit states that the two members of Erika Record, LLC
reside in and are citizens of New Jersey and Germany.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, defective allegations of
jurisdiction may be amended.1
The United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit has stated that “[s]ection 1653 gives both
district and appellate courts the power to remedy inadequate
jurisdictional allegations, but not defective jurisdictional
USX Corp. v. Adriatic Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 190, 204 (F.3d
Because the defendant seeks to remedy only inadequate
A notice of removal may be amended for any reason
without leave of court within the 30 day period for removal. 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because the 30 day period for removal expired
however, the defendant may amend the notice of removal only with
the Court’s leave.
jurisdictional allegations made in the notice of removal, the
Court grants leave for the defendant to amend its notice of
removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
An appropriate order follows separately.
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?