1.800. Vending v. Wyland et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-On or before July 7, 2016, Plaintiff shall plead the citizenship of Grow Franchise Group, LLC and Sprout Healthy Vending, LLC. It shall also allege the citizenship of each of the Doe defendants. If diversity jurisdiction is not established, this case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 6/15/16. (jmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

1.800.VENDING, INC.,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

vs.
Case No. 1:14-cv-121 CW
CHRIS WYLAND; GROW FRANCHISE
GROUP, LLC; SPROUT HEALTHY
VENDING, LLC; GROW HEALTHY
INCORPORATED, DOES 1-50,

Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

CHRIS WYLAND et al.,
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
vs.
1.800.VENDING, INC. dba HEALTHY YOU
VENDING et al.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

Plaintiff 1.800.Vending, Inc. filed this action on October 3, 2014. It asserts this court has
jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Although none of the parties has challenged this
court’s jurisdiction, the court nevertheless must “satisfy itself of its power to adjudicate in every
case and at every state of the proceedings.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d

1269, 1271 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotations and citation omitted).
“[F]or entities other than corporations,” the court’s “diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or
against [an] entity depends on the citizenship of . . . each of its members.” Penteco Corp. Ltd.
Partnership-1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1523 (10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has
not pled the citizenship of each member of limited liability companies who are parties in this
action.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has stated “when a plaintiff sues more than one
defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirement of the diversity statute for
each defendant or face dismissal.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829
(1989) (emphasis in original). When a case is removed to federal court, an exception exists for
Doe defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). If, however, a case originates in federal court (as
opposed to being removed to federal court), the general rule is “the diverse citizenship of the
fictitious defendants must be established by the plaintiff in order to continue a federal court
action.” Lee v. Airgas – Mid South, Inc., 793 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing 13F Charles Alan
Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure, § 3642 (3d ed. 2009)). This court has followed the
general rule and requires that a good-faith allegation be made as to the citizenship of Doe
defendants. See e.g., Van de Grift v. Higgins, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1141 (D. Utah 2010); Pia v.
Supernova Media, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-840, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120050 (D. Utah Nov. 8,
2010).
Until Plaintiff alleges the citizenship of the LLC members and the Doe defendants, the
court cannot conclude that it has jurisdiction. Accordingly, on or before July 7, 2016, Plaintiff
shall plead the citizenship of Grow Franchise Group, LLC and Sprout Healthy Vending, LLC. It
shall also allege the citizenship of each of the Doe defendants. If diversity jurisdiction is not
2

established, this case will be dismissed.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

3