Duoline Technologies LP v. McClean Anderson LLC

Filing 42

ORDER Requiring Proof of Diversity Citizenship. Proof of Diversity Citizenship due 11/17/2010. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/10/2010. (llj)

Duoline Technologies LP v. McClean Anderson LLC

Doc. 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------D U O L IN E TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., Plaintiff, v. M cC LEA N ANDERSON, LLC, D e fe n d a n t . --------------------------------------------In this civil action for monetary relief, plaintiff Duoline Technologies, L.P. brings claim s for breach of contract, breach of warranties, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent ind ucem ent and unjust enrichment against defendant McClean Anderson, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because the parties are completely diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, this court h a s an independent obligation to insure that diversity jurisdiction exists. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006); Tylka v. Gerber Products Company, 211 F.3d 445, 447-48 (7th Cir. 2000) (federal courts are "always obliged to inquire sua sponte w henever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction"). My review of plaintiff's am ended complaint indicates that plaintiff has not made an adequate allegation of diversity un der § 1332. ORDER 10-cv-252-bbc

1

Dockets.Justia.com

First, plaintiff has not identified its own citizenship properly. Plaintiff alleges that it is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Gilmer, Texas. The citizenship of a limited partnership is determined by the citizenship of each of the limited and general partners. Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) ("The citizenship of a partnership is the citizenship of the partners, even if they are limited partners.") (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not identified its partners or the citizenship of those partners. Second, plaintiff has not established the citizenship of defendant McClean Anderson, LLC . The citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of its m em bers. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) ("an LLC's jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of each of its members as of the date the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those members have members, the citizenship of those members as well"); Wise v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, 450 F.3d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 2006); 15 Moore's Federal Practice, § 102.57[8] at 102-140.2-141 (2008). The amended complaint states that McClean Anderson, LLC is a Wisconsin corporation, with its principal place of business in Schofield, Wisconsin. Plaintiff has not identified the m em bers of McClean Anderson, LLC or the citizenship of those members. Although I suspect that plaintiff will be able to establish diversity of the parties, it w ould be a waste of limited judicial resources to proceed further in a case in which jurisdiction may not be present. Plaintiff may have until November 17, 2010 in which to

2

prod uce facts verifying the diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff is reminded that, to the extent any partner in a limited partnership or any member of a lim ited liability company is an individual person, it is the citizenship, not the residency, of individual persons that matters for diversity jurisdiction purposes. An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled, that is, where he has a "permanent home and principal establishm ent, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom ." Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Charles Alan W right, Law of Federal Courts 161 (5th ed. 1994).

ORDER It is ORDERED that plaintiff Duoline Technologies, L.P. may have until November 17 , 2010 in which to provide this court with verification of the diversity of citizenship between itself and defendant. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Entered this 10th day of November, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s / B A R BA R A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3