Principle Solutions LLC v. Feed.Ing BV
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 6/5/2013. On or before 7/8/2013 Principle Solutions MAY FILE amended complaint establishing subject matter jurisdiction, failure to file will result in dismissal. See Order for details. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PRINCIPLE SOLUTIONS LLC,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant,
-vsFEED.ING BV,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant,
Case No. 13-C-223
and
KEVIN ZIMMER
Counterclaim-Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Plaintiff, Principle Solutions LLC (“Principle”), asserts that the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). Section
1332(a)(2) affords district courts jurisdiction over civil actions between state citizens
and citizens of foreign states. Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176, 1182 (7th Cir. 1980).
“This power is sometimes referred to as alienage jurisdiction.” Id.
As with any case involving diversity or alienage jurisdiction, this Court is
responsible for independently evaluating the sufficiency of the allegations to determine
whether the parties meet the diversity (or alienage) and amount in controversy
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Muscarello v. Ogle Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 610
F.3d 416, 425 (7th Cir. 2010); Buchel-Ruegsegger v. Buchel, 576 F.3d 451, 453 (7th
Cir. 2009).
Civil Local Rule 8 provides:
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.
(E.D. Wis.)
As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Principle bears the burden of
demonstrating that the jurisdictional requirements have been met. See Muscarello,
610 F.3d at 425. The burden of persuasion for establishing diversity jurisdiction is on
the party asserting it. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1194
(2010).
With respect to alienage jurisdiction, paragraphs one and two of the Complaint
allege the following:
Principle is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of the State of Wisconsin. Principle’s principal
place of business is located at 5278 Red Cedar Court,
West Bend, Wisconsin 53095. All of the members of
Principle are considered citizens of the State of Wisconsin
for purposes of assessing jurisdiction.
Defendant Feed is, upon information and belief, a limited
liability company located in The Netherlands and
organized in accordance with Dutch law. Upon
information and belief, no member of Feed is a resident of
the State of Wisconsin.
-2-
With respect to Principle, the allegation of a limited liability company’s
principal place of business is irrelevant to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Rather, for a limited liability company, “citizenship . . . for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction is the citizenship of [each of ] its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150
F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). The citizenship of a non-corporate entity must be
“traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be.”
Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino P’ship, 312 F.3d 318, 320 (7th Cir. 2002).
Members of a limited liability company may include “partnerships, corporations, and
other entities that have multiple citizenships.” Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439
F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006). “A federal court thus needs to know each member’s
citizenship, and if necessary each member’s members’ citizenships.” Id. at 348.
Therefore, Principle must allege each member of the limited liability company and its
citizenship.
With respect to Defendant Feed.ing BV (“Feed”), alleged upon information
and belief, to be a Netherland’s limited liability company, the issue of citizenship has
additional layers of complexity. It is well-settled that a plaintiff claiming diversity
jurisdiction may not do so on the basis of information and belief, only personal
knowledge is sufficient. Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d
1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992).
Alleged jurisdictional facts must be supported by
competent proof. Hertz, 130 S.Ct. at 1194-95.
White Pearl Inversiones S.A. (Uruguay) v. Cemusa, Inc., 647 F.3d 684, 686
-3-
(7th Cir. 2011), highlights that it can be difficult to decide whether a foreign business
entity bearing a specific suffix is a corporation for the purpose of § 1332 or is more
like a limited partnership, limited liability company, or business trust. Id. (citing Lear
Corp. v. Johnson Electric Holdings Ltd., 353 F.3d 580, 582-83 (7th Cir. 2003)).
The acronym B.V. stands for “Besloten Vennootschap,” a Dutch entity. It is
unclear to the Court whether a “Besloten Vennootschap” is more like a corporation, a
limited liability company, or some other legal entity. Principle must provide factual
information regarding the nature of a “Besloten Vennootschap,” and the type of legal
entity to which it is most analogous for purposes of section 1332.
If Feed is analogous to a limited liability company, then its citizenship depends on the
citizenship of its members, and the identity of all members must be alleged.
Furthermore if, as implied by paragraph two of the Complaint, Feed has individuals as
members, “residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d
616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). The Complaint must be amended to clarify the citizenship of
any individuals; i.e., the identity of the state or county in which each person is
domiciled. See Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court will
give Principle an opportunity to amend its Complaint to establish that subject matter
jurisdiction exists.
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
On or before July 8, 2013, Principle MAY FILE an amended Complaint.
Failure to file an amended Complaint by the stated deadline will result in
dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 5th day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-5-
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?