DDR-SAU Jackson West Towne, L.L.C. v. Peters et al

Filing 2

ORDER: Within 20 days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order addressing the points discussed above and establishing that the Court does, in fact, have subject matter jurisdiction of this action. Defendants may, b ut are not required to, file a Reply to Plaintiff's Response within 15 days after the filing of Plaintiff's Response. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/4/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DDR-SAU JACKSON WEST
TOWNE, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

NICOLAAS PETERS, JUDY PETERS,
RAJESH AGGARWAL.
REITA AGGARWAL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 3:14-0909
) JUDGE NIXON/ KNOWLES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, with regard to an issue concerning this
Court’s jurisdiction. “[E]very federal court, whether trial or appellate, is obliged to notice want
of subject matter jurisdiction on its own Motion.” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, Inc.,
516 U.S. 124, 132 n.1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). See also Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc.,
v. Creation Ministries International, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[F]ederal courts
have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the
issue sua sponte.”).
Plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)(diversity
of citizenship). Plaintiff identifies itself as “a Delaware limited liability company authorized to
do business in Tennessee.” Docket No. 1. The Complaint identifies Defendants as citizens and
residents of Tennessee. These allegations, however, are not sufficient to establish that this Court

has diversity jurisdiction of this action. The Sixth Circuit has held that the citizenship of a
limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of each of its members, and not with
regard to the state in which it is incorporated or the state in which it has its principal place of
business. See Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009).
The burden of establishing the existence of diversity jurisdiction rests upon Plaintiff,
which has invoked the Court’s jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298
U.S. 178, 189 (1936).
Within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a Response to this
Order addressing the points discussed above and establishing that the Court does, in fact, have
subject matter jurisdiction of this action. Defendants may, but are not required to, file a Reply to
Plaintiff’s Response within fifteen (15) days after the filing of Plaintiff’s Response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

2