Watson v. XO Communications Services et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE-finding as moot 35 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 47 Motion for Leave to File; finding as moot 29 Motion to Amend/Correct. The court REMANDS the matter to the state court. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/17/18. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
B.M. WATSON,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER REMANDING CASE
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00156
XO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES LLC,
and John Does 1-5.
Judge Clark Waddoups
Defendants.
The court previously entered an Order to Show Cause holding that “[a]bsent XO
Communications’ citation to contrary controlling authority, failure to affirmatively allege the
citizenship of all of its members will result in the case being remanded.” (ECF No. 44 at 5.) As
explained in more detail below, XO Communications has failed to meet its burden in establishing
diversity jurisdiction. The case is remanded to the state court.
Background
Because Defendant XO Communications, in its Notice of Removal, failed to allege the
citizenship of all of its members, the court, on August 10, 2018, ordered XO Communications “to
show cause” “why the case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 37 at 4.)
On August 24, 2018, XO Communications filed its Response to Order to Show Cause. (ECF No.
42.) In this response, XO communications provided “[t]he organizational structures” “for XO” as
it “existed at the time the Complaint was filed in state court on January 20, 2017 as well as at the
time the Notice of Removal was filed on March 3, 2017.” (ECF No. 42 at 2 n. 1 (citing Four Aces
Mobile Home Estates v. Lundahl, 35 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (D. Utah) aff'd, 166 F.3d 347 (10th
1
Cir. 1998) for the proposition that “for complete diversity to exist in a removed case diversity
must be present both at the time the notice of removal is filed in federal court and at the time the
state court action was commenced.”).)
Regarding the time the Complaint was filed in state court, XO Communications stated the
following:
Via a series of Delaware limited liability companies, XO Communications
Services, LLC (“XO”) was wholly owned by either a Delaware corporation and/or
an individual person. None of the Delaware corporations in the chain of ownership
had a principal place of business in Utah. The relevant individual person was not a
citizen of Utah . . . Accordingly, XO was not a citizen of Utah as of January 20,
2017.
ECF No. 42 at 2. XO Communications also stated that “[t]he identities of the unnamed entities
and the individual persons [referenced above] are intended to remain private for business
reasons.” (ECF No. 42 at 2 n. 2.)
On August 29, 2018, the court entered a second Order to Show Cause holding that
“[a]bsent XO Communications’ citation to contrary controlling authority, failure to affirmatively
allege the citizenship of all of its members will result in the case being remanded.” (ECF No. 44
at 5.) The court also stated that “[i]f XO Communications can satisfy the requirements of DUCivR 5-3, the court may consider allowing XO Communications to allege the identities and
citizenship of its members under seal.” (ECF No. 44 at 5 n. 3.)
On September 12, 2018, XO Communications filed a Response to the second order to
show cause. (ECF No. 46.) In this Response, XO Communications stated that “the Tenth Circuit
does not require affirmative allegations or evidence of diversity; instead, ‘all that is necessary is
that a party establish that diverse citizenship does or does not exist.’” (ECF No. 46 at 2 (quoting
Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 7 F.3d 909, 915–16, n.1 (10th Cir. 1993).) XO
2
Communications cited to four Tenth Circuit cases in support of its argument.1 XO
Communications also cited to “[c]ourts in other circuits” that “have similarly recognized that
proof that litigants are from differing states, without regard to what those states may be, is
sufficient proof of diversity.” (ECF No. 46 at 4.) XO Communications did not allege the identities
and citizenship of its members under seal. (See ECF No. 46.) Nor did XO Communications even
address the option to file the identities and citizenship of its members under seal. (See ECF No.
46.)
Analysis
“In general, for jurisdictional citizenship, there are two types of business organizations:
corporations and unincorporated associations.” Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,
L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015). “For diversity, a corporation is a citizen of its state of
incorporation and the state where its principal place of business is located.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1)). An “unincorporated entity’s citizenship is typically determined by its members’
citizenship.” Id. As the court previously noted, the Tenth Circuit has concluded that an LLC is an
unincorporated association, not a corporation. See Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century
Sur.Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2015) (“Like every other circuit to consider this question,
this court concludes an LLC, as an unincorporated association, takes the citizenship of all its
members.”) And, as the court previously noted, “Supreme Court precedent makes clear that in
determining the citizenship of an unincorporated association for purposes of diversity, federal
courts must include all the entities’ members.” Id. at 1237–38. Again, courts “have an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the
1
(1) Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 7 F.3d 909 (10th Cir. 1993), abrogated by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559
U.S. 77, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010); (2) Shell Rocky Mountain Prod., LLC v. Ultra Res., Inc., 415
F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2005); (3) Hendrix v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 390 F.2d 299 (10th Cir. 1968); and (4) United
Nuclear Corp. v. Moki Oil & Rare Metals Co., 364 F.2d 568, 570 (10th Cir. 1966).
3
absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct.
1235, 1244, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006) (citation omitted).
As noted above, the court previously held that “[a]bsent XO Communications’ citation to
contrary controlling authority,” “XO Communications cannot meet its burden in establishing
diversity jurisdiction without affirmatively alleging the citizenship of all of its members.” (ECF
No. 44 at 5.) The question for this court is whether XO Communications’ cited Tenth Circuit
authority support its claim that its “assertions comport with the citizenship test requirements for
unincorporated entities.” (ECF No. 46 at 6.) The court addresses each of XO Communications’
cited Tenth Circuit cases in turn.
The first case is Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 7 F.3d 909 (10th Cir. 1993). XO
Communications cites Amoco for the proposition that “XO’s assertions comport with the
citizenship test requirements for unincorporated entities.” (ECF No. 46 at 6 (citing Amoco, 7 F.3d
at 915–916, n.1).) But in that case, Amoco, the party “bear[ing] the burden or proving” diversity
jurisdiction was a corporation—not an unincorporated association. See Amoco, 7 F.3d at 914. And
in that case, the identity of the corporation was known to the court. For example, the district court
knew that “Amoco’s assets and production activities [were] in Utah and Wyoming.” See id. at
916. Because of this knowledge, the district court was able to conclude that the corporation’s
principal place of business was “not Colorado.” Id. It was because the district court had this
knowledge that the Tenth Circuit stated “[d]iversity jurisdiction is premised upon the parties
being from different states; which states those happen to be is not relevant if the party can be
served, as long as it is clear that the possibilities do not include states that would destroy
diversity.” Id. at 916 n. 3.
4
Here, unlike the corporation in Amoco, none of the identities of the Delaware corporations
that owned XO Communications Services, LLC during the relevant period are known to the court.
Nor are those corporations’ principal places of business known to the court—meaning the court
has no idea what the corporations’ citizenships are. Nor does the court know the citizenship of the
individual owner. The court in Amoco did not have to take the corporation’s “and its counsel’s
word” Brown v. Diversified Maint. Sys., LLC, No. 16-CV-230, 2016 WL 3207712, at *3
(W.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016) that the corporation was not a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff
because the court knew the identity of the corporation and because the court had information
about the corporation with which it could make an independent determination as to diversity. That
is not the case here. XO Communications’ reliance on Amoco is misplaced and not well taken.
Next, the court turns to Shell Rocky Mountain Prod., LLC v. Ultra Res., Inc., 415 F.3d
1158 (10th Cir. 2005). In that case, the plaintiff was “a Delaware limited liability corporation
(LLC)” and the defendant was “a Wyoming corporation.” Id. at 1162. It appears that the Tenth
Circuit in that case applied the citizenship test for corporations to the plaintiff LLC. See id.
Regardless, in that case, the “parties [were] in disagreement . . . as to the location of the
[corporation’s] principal place of business.” Id. The identity of the corporation was known to the
court. See id. The Tenth Circuit “conclude[d] [that] the district court did not commit clear error in
its determination that [the defendant corporation’s] principal place of business [was] either
Wyoming or Colorado, but not Texas.” Id. at 1163. Again, the district court had information with
which it could make an independent determination as to the defendant’s citizenship. No such
information exists here. XO Communications’ reliance on Shell Rocky is misplaced.
Next, the court turns to Hendrix v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 390 F.2d 299 (10th Cir.
1968). In that case, a corporation—not an unincorporated entity—filed a “timely removal
5
petition” that was originally “defective for failure to specify . . . the principal place of business of
the defendant or otherwise show that such principal place of business was in a state other than that
of the citizenship of the plaintiff.” Hendrix, 390 F.2d at 300. Because the removal petition was
initially defective, the district court “granted leave to set out fully by amendment the basis of
diversity jurisdiction in accordance with facts which are not challenged.” Id. Again, the identity of
the removing defendant was known to the court. Id. That is not the case here. XO
Communication’s reliance on Hendrix is misplaced.
Next, the court turns to United Nuclear Corp. v. Moki Oil & Rare Metals Co., 364 F.2d
568 (10th Cir. 1966). Again, this case involved corporations, not unincorporated associations. See
Moki Oil, 364 F.3d at 569 (“This is a diversity action brought by Moki Oil & Rare Metals
Company, a New Mexico corporation, against Phillips Petroleum Company and United Nuclear
Corporation, both Delaware corporations.). And, again, the identities of the corporations were
known to the court. See id. After reviewing “affidavits,” “exhibits introduced in evidence,” “and
portions of certain depositions taken,” the district court found that one of the corporations “had its
principal place of business in a state other than the State of New Mexico, and therefore complete
diversity of jurisdiction existed . . . .” Id. at 570. Once again, XO Communications relies on a case
in which the district court was able to make an independent determination as to a corporation’s
principal place of business. XO Communications’ reliance on Moki Oil is misplaced.
The court will not address XO Communications’ citations to out of circuit authority
because those cases are not binding on this court. XO Communications’ cited Tenth Circuit
authority does not support its claim that its “assertions comport with the citizenship test
requirements for unincorporated entities.” (ECF No. 46 at 6.) XO Communications has not
presented the court with any controlling authority standing for the proposition that it can meet its
6
burden of establishing diversity without affirmatively pleading the identity and citizenship of its
members. Again, “where the unincorporated association is the proponent of diversity jurisdiction,
there is no reason to excuse it of its obligation to plead the citizenship of each of its members.”
Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 108 n.36 (3d Cir. 2015). The court further
allowed XO Communications the option of satisfying its pleading requirements by filing the
alleged confidential information under seal. XO Communications elected not to do so,
notwithstanding the fact that it has the burden of proof on this issue. The Tenth Circuit has made
this requirement clear in its Rules of Appellate Procedure. See 10th Cir. R. App. P. 26.1(A)(1)
(“[w]here the asserted basis for federal jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and a party . . . to the
appeal [is] formed as a limited liability company . . . each party so defined must . . . [i]nclude in
that party’s brief a statement identifying its members and their states of citizenship.”). Regarding
the time the Complaint was filed in state court, XO Communications has not identified each of its
members and their states of citizenship. It has failed to meet its burden in establishing diversity
jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The court REMANDS the matter to the state court. Because of this result, the pending
Motions, (ECF Nos. 29, 35, and 47) are MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of September 2018.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Court Judge
7
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?