Community Memorial Hospital of Menomonee Falls Inc v. GFRC Cladding Systems LLC et al

Filing 53

ORDER that GFRCs notice withdrawing its pending motion for summary judgment on the issue of successor liability and the related filings, is APPROVED; Motions terminated: 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by GFRC Cladding Systems LLC. No later th an 01/31/2012, the Defendants must file an amended notice of removal consistent with this Order; and Failure to comply with the Court's order by the stated deadline will result in the remand of this action to the state court from which it was removed. Signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on 01/10/2012. (cc: all counsel)(Koll, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
OF MENOMONEE FALLS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-C-533

GFRC CLADDING SYSTEMS, LLC;
TOLMAGCO, INC;
and AMERISURE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.

ORDER

Having considered the notice filed by Defendant GFRC Cladding Systems LLC,
(“GFRC”) on December 27, 2011, withdrawing its pending motion for summary judgment on
the issue of successor liability (Docket No. 16) and the related filings (Docket No. 17-20), the
Court approves the withdrawal of GFRC’s summary judgment motion, and directs that the
Clerk of Court terminate that motion.
In reviewing the file, the Court notes that the Defendants removed this action
from state court based on the allegation that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. The party seeking a federal forum has the burden of establishing jurisdiction, and
must demonstrate that removal is proper. Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524, 529
(7th Cir. 2004).

The amended notice of removal alleges that Defendant GFRC is a Texas limited
liability company (“LLC”), with its principal place of business in Garland, Texas. (Am. Not.
Removal ¶ 6.) The allegations are insufficient to establish a limited liability company’s
citizenship. See, e.g., Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998); Thomas v.
Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533–34 (7th Cir. 2007). As a result, the Defendants have
not established that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
For purposes of the diversity inquiry, the citizenship of every member of a
limited liability company must be established by the party invoking federal jurisdiction. See
id. It essential to trace the citizenship of all investors through all levels, for example if one
LLC invests in another LLC.1 See White Pearl Inversiones S.A. (Uruguay) v. Cemusa, Inc.,
647 F.3d 684, 686 (7th Cir. 2011).
Civil Local Rule 8 also states:
If a pleading or notice of removal asserts jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship, the pleading or notice must identify the
amount in controversy and the citizenship of each party to the
litigation. If any party is a corporation, the pleading or notice
must identify both the state of incorporation and the state in
which the corporation has its principal place of business. If any
party is an unincorporated association, limited liability company,
or partnership, the pleading or notice must identify the citizenship
of all members.
(Emphasis added.) The Court will allow the Defendants to file a second amended notice of
removal properly alleging the citizenship of all of the members of GFRC. Failure to comply

1

In that regard, the Court notes that GFRC’s disclosure statement filed on July 8, 2011, indicates that its sole
member is GFRC Holdings LLC – a Texas limited liability company.

2

with the Court’s order by the stated deadline will result in the remand of this action to the state
court from which it was removed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
GFRC’s notice withdrawing its pending motion for summary judgment on the
issue of successor liability (Docket No. 16) and the related filings (Docket No. 17-20), is
APPROVED;
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE GFRC’s motion for
summary judgment (Docket No. 16);
No later than January 31, 2012, the Defendants must file an amended notice
of removal consistent with this Order; and
Failure to comply with the Court’s order by the stated deadline will result in the
remand of this action to the state court from which it was removed.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

3