BOTA v. UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC. et al
ORDER re 1 Notice of Removal, filed by UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC., SNORKEL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, directing Defendants to file an amended Notice of Removal with proper LLC citizenship allegations by December 13, 2017 Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 11/22/2017. (spc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) )
INC. and SNORKEL INTERNATIONAL, )
Civil Action No. 17-1529
On November 21, 2017, Defendant Snorkel International, LLC (Snorkel), with the
consent of the other defendant, United Rentals (North America), Inc., removed the above action
which had been filed against then in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, predicating subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. However, after
alleging that Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania and that United Rentals is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut, the Notice of Removal states that
Snorkel is “a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its
principal place of business in Nevada.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 9.)
This is improper. “[T]he citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of its
members.” Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419-20 (3d Cir. 2010). In
addition, where one of the members of the LLC named in the complaint is also an LLC, the
citizenship of that LLC’s members must also be traced to determine the citizenship of the LLC
named in the complaint. Id. at 420 (citation omitted). The Notice of Removal fails to allege the
citizenship of the members of Snorkel, an LLC. Therefore, Defendants have failed to establish
this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2017,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Snorkel shall file an amended Notice of Removal that
sets forth sufficient factual allegations to establish diversity of citizenship among the parties by
December 13, 2017. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the action
without further notice.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and Rule 72.C.2
of the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of issuance
of this Order to file an appeal to the District Judge, which includes the basis for objection to this
Order. Any party opposing the appeal shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of
the notice of appeal to respond thereto. Failure to file a timely notice of appeal may constitute a
waiver of any appellate rights.
s/Robert C. Mitchell____________________
ROBERT C. MITCHELL
United States Magistrate Judge
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?