Graham v. Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 11/4/2016. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
MARY LOU GRAHAM
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
MOHEGAN SUN AT POCONO DOWNS :
:
AND
:
:
KILLIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY :
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-908

(Judge Kosik)

MEMORANDUM
Before this court are Plaintiff and Defendant Mohegan Sun’s memorandums of law in
response to this court’s sua sponte, September 6, 2016, Order, raising the issue of whether this
court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity
jurisdiction (Doc. 67). Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for a Hearing (Doc. 71) on this issue.
This matter, having been fully briefed, is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, we
find that diversity jurisdiction exists.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this matter on May 12, 2014, in this court, by filing a complaint against
Defendants Killian Construction Company and Mohegan Sun. (Doc. 1). Mohegan Sun filed a
Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint on May 20, 2016, and a brief in support.
(Docs. 6 and 7). Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on June 3, 2014. (Doc. 8).
Defendant Mohegan Sun filed a Motion to Dismiss, In Part, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on

June 23, 2014, and a brief in support. (Docs. 9 and 10).
On November 11, 2014, Defendant Killian Construction Company filed an Answer to the
Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Crossclaim against Defendant Mohegan Sun. (Doc. 27).
Defendant Mohegan Sun filed an Answer to Defendant Killian Construction Company’s
Crossclaims on November 14, 2014. (Doc. 28). On December 2, 2014, this court denied
Defendant Mohegan Sun’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and
directed Defendant Moghean Sun to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint. (Docs. 29 and
30).
Subsequently, Defendant Mohegan Sun filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and a
Crossclaim to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on December 19, 2014. (Doc. 31). A case
management conference was conducted on January 29, 2015, establishing that discovery would
run until the end of May, 2015, and acknowledging that some discovery had already been
conducted. (Doc. 35). On September 14, 2015, Defendant Killian Construction Company filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support (Docs 42 and 43), and Defendant Mohegan
Sun filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Joinder to Killian Construction
Company’s motion on October 5, 2015. (Docs. 47 and 48).
This court denied Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on June 14, 2016 (Docs.
59 and 60), and on September 6, 2016, issued, sua sponte, an order requesting supplemental
briefs on the question of whether this court has jurisdiction based on diversity (Doc. 67). Both
Plaintiff and Defendant Mohegan Sun have filed supplemental briefs on the issue of diversity
jurisdiction (Docs. 68 and 70), with Plaintiff also seeking a hearing (Doc. 71). This matter is
now ripe for disposition.
2

II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed this action in federal court alleging diversity jurisdiction in the Complaint.
(Doc. 1). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a complaint to contain “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(1). Plaintiff alleges
subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity, which requires that the amount in
controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and that all plaintiffs be diverse from
all defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because diversity of citizenship is a jurisdictional
requirement, it is within the exclusive purview of the court to determine whether diversity exists.
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990).
A corporation is a citizen of the state of its incorporation as well as the state of its
principal place of business, defined as its nerve center. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp.
v. Friend, 599 U.S. 77, 80 (2010). The citizenship of a limited liability company is determined
by the citizenship of its members; “for complete diversity to exist, all of the LLC’s members
must be diverse from all parties on the opposing side.” Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC,
800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). A partnership takes the citizenship
of its members, both general and, if so structured, limited. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 187–92. The
state under the laws of which a limited partnership and other unincorporated associations are
organized, and their principal places of business, are legally irrelevant for diversity jurisdiction
purposes. Id.; Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 800 F.3d at 104-05; A.D.S. Developes, Inc. v. Tucker, 263
F. Supp. 986, 986-87 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 1967) (stating that the fact that a “partnership is
registered in Pennsylvania ... according to the registration certificate ... [and] its principal place of

3

business [is] in Pennsylvania” does not destroy diversity jurisdiction for federal diversity
purposes. Rather, the determinative factor [is] the citizenship of the individual members).
We find that this court has jurisdiction over the present action based on diversity.
Looking at the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the appropriate amount in controversy as
well as complete diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania, Defendant Killian
Construction Company, a corporation, is a citizen of Missouri, and Mohegan Sun at Pocono
Downs is a trade name of Downs Racing, LP, a limited partnership. (Doc. 68-1 and 2). Filed
with the Pennsylvania Department of State, is a certificate of amendment to the limited
partnership, naming Downs Racing, LP, as the name of the limited partnership, and the
amendment being adopted by the limited partnership set forth as Mohegan Commercial Ventures
PA, LLC, 1 Mohegan Sun Blvd, Uncasville, Connecticut. (Doc. 68-2). Peter Roberti signed the
amendment as vice president of the limited partnership naming the new general partner as Downs
Racing LP by Mohegan Commercial Ventures PA, LLC, its general partner. (Doc. 68-2).
On review of the briefs and exhibits attached thereto by the parties in this matter, this
court concludes that diversity is satisfied. Because the principal place of business or organization
of a partnership or other unincorporated association is legally irrelevant in determining diversity
jurisdiction, Defendant Mohegan Sun’s argument that Downs Racing, LP is a Pennsylvania
limited partnership with a principal place of business in Plains Township, Pennsylvania, is
legally irrelevant and not determinative of its citizenship status. Rather, the citizenship of its
members, both general and, if so structured, limited, is the determinative factor.

4

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the
present action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction. We will dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion
for a Hearing (Doc. 71) as moot. An appropriate order follows.

5