Sand Companies Inc v. Goodman Manufacturing Company LP

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 5/26/15 that, within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that corrects the defects identified above. If no amended complaint is filed within that time, I will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (cc: all counsel)(dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SAND COMPANIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-C-0611

GOODMAN MANUFACTURING CO., L.P.,
Defendant.

ORDER
Sand Companies, Inc., has filed a complaint in this court and asserts that federal
jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are diverse and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. I must examine newly filed complaints to ensure that they
properly allege facts that, if true, would establish that federal jurisdiction exists. See Chase
v. Shop n' Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff has
burden of demonstrating that jurisdictional requirements are met); Wisconsin Knife Works
v. National Metal Crafter, 781 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986) ("The first thing a federal
judge should do when a complaint is filed is check to see that federal jurisdiction is properly
alleged"). As explained below, in this case the complaint does not properly allege such
facts.
The plaintiff is a corporation, and a corporation is deemed a citizen of both the state
in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Although the complaint identifies the plaintiff’s principal place of
business, it does not identify its state of incorporation. Rather, the complaint alleges that
the plaintiff is a “foreign” corporation, which I assume means that it is not incorporated in

Wisconsin. But unless I know in which foreign state the plaintiff is incorporated, I cannot
determine whether it is a citizen of any state of which the defendant is also a citizen. Thus,
the state in which the plaintiff is incorporated must be identified.
The defendant appears to be a limited partnership or a limited liability company.
(The complaint alleges that the defendant is a limited liability corporation, but the “L.P.” in
the defendant’s name implies that it is a limited partnership.) The citizenship of a limited
partnership is determined by the citizenship of each of its partners, see Grupo Dataflux v.
Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569 (2004), and the citizenship of a limited liability
company is determined by the citizenship of each of its members, see Thomas v.
Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). However, the complaint does not
identify the partners or members of the defendant or the citizenship of such partners or
members. Before this case may proceed in federal court, the citizenship of such partners
or members must be properly alleged.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order, the
plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that corrects the defects identified above. If no
amended complaint is filed within that time, I will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th of May, 2015.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2