The Porter Casino Resort, Inc. v. Georgia Gaming Investment, LLC, et al

Filing 17

ORDER requiring Defendants to submit evidence sufficient to establish that there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 6/28/2018. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

THE PORTER CASINO RESORT,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGIA GAMING INVESTMENT,
LLC, AND TENNESSEE HOLDING
INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Defendants.

No. 18-cv-2231-SHM-dkv

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Georgia Gaming Investment,
LLC and Tennessee Holding Investments, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss,
or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue to the Northern District
of Georgia, filed on April 13, 2018.

(ECF No. 7.)

Plaintiff

The Porter Casino Resort, Inc. responded on May 10, 2018.

(ECF

No. 9.)
On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Defendants in the Chancery Court of the Thirtieth Judicial
District in Memphis, Tennessee.

(ECF No. 1-1 at 9.)

Plaintiff

alleges breach of contract and seeks a declaratory judgment.
(Id. at 13-14.)

On April 6, 2018, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal,
asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332.

(Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2.)

Defendants represent that Plaintiff is a Tennessee corporation
with its principal place of business in Memphis.

(Id.)

They

also represent that:
Defendant Georgia Gaming Investment, LLC, is a
Georgia limited liability company with a principal
office located at 5675 Jimmy Carter Boulevard, Suite
110, Norcross, Georgia 30071.
Defendant Tennessee
Holding Investments, LLC, is a Georgia limited
liability company with a principal office located at
7731 Nashville Street, Ringgold, Georgia 30736. . . .
Thus, Plaintiff is a resident of the State of
Tennessee and the Defendants are residents of the
State of Georgia.
(Id.)
It is unclear from the complaint and Notice of Removal
whether there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and
Defendants.

“[A] party seeking to bring a case into federal

court carries the burden of establishing diversity
jurisdiction.”

Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 493

(6th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), this Court has original
jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different
states “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”

2

28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a)(1).

A party seeking to establish diversity

jurisdiction for a limited liability company must allege the
citizenship of all persons or entities that are members of the
limited liability company, including other limited liability
companies and persons having membership interests.

See Grupo

Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 579 (2004)
(emphasis added) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs, 494 U.S. 185,
195 (1990)); V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354,
356 (6th Cir. 2010) (“[L]imited liability companies ‘have the
citizenship of each partner or member.’”

(quoting Delay v.

Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th
Cir.2009))).

“[B]ecause a member of a limited liability

company may itself have multiple members -- and thus may itself
have multiple citizenships -- the federal court needs to know
the citizenship of each ‘sub-member’ as well.”

Delay, 585 F.3d

at 1005.
The Court has an independent obligation to ensure that it
has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin &

Assocs., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir. 1998), abrogated on
other grounds by Thomas v. Miller, 489 F.3d 293 (6th Cir.
2007).

Plaintiff has not alleged any claims arising under

federal law.

Defendants have not alleged any persons or

entities holding membership interests in Georgia Gaming

3

Investment, LLC or Tennessee Holding Investments, LLC.

It is

not apparent from the complaint, Notice of Removal, or from
review of the record that there is complete diversity.
Defendants are ORDERED to submit evidence sufficient to
establish that there is complete diversity between Plaintiff
and Defendants within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Order.

So ordered this 28th day of June, 2018.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4