Henry Technologies Holdings, LLC v. Giordano, Michael

Filing 22

ORDER that plaintiff shall have until 6/19/2014 to serve an amended complaint containing good faith allegations to establish diversity of citizenship for purpose of determining subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C 1332. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/5/2014. (voc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

HENRY TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

OPINION &ORDER

v.
14-cv-63-jdp
MICHAEL GIORDANO,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Henry Technologies Holdings, LLC, brings this civil action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), alleging diversity of citizenship as grounds for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Henry Technologies alleges that it is not party to a contract upon which defendant Michael
Giordano has filed a petition for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, and
seeks a declaratory judgment to that effect. However, because the allegations in the complaint
are insufficient to determine if the parties are truly diverse, the court will give Henry
Technologies an opportunity to file an amended complaint containing the necessary factual
allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction.

OPINION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local
150, AFL-CIO v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir. 2009).

Unless a complaint alleges

complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000, or raises a federal question, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Smart
v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009). Because jurisdiction
is limited, federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94

(2010). Further, the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing
that jurisdiction is present. Smart, 562 F.3d at 802-03. Here, Henry Technologies contends
that the court has jurisdiction because the parties are diverse. (Dkt. 1.) Unfortunately, Henry
Technologies’ allegations are insufficient to allow this court to determining the citizenship of
either party.
Henry Technologies is a limited liability company, and “the citizenship of an LLC is the
citizenship of each of its members.” Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992
(7th Cir. 2007). However, Henry Technologies has not alleged the citizenship of its members,
making it impossible to determine whether complete diversity exists in this case. Instead, Henry
Technologies alleges that it is “a Wisconsin limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Beloit, Wisconsin.”

(Dkt. 1.)

As the Seventh Circuit has instructed, this

information is not relevant in deciding the citizenship of a limited liability company. Hukic v.
Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). In addition, Henry Technologies has
alleged that Giordano is a resident of the State of New Jersey. (Dkt. 1.) This information is
insufficient as “[r]esidence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009).
Before dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Henry Technologies
will be given leave to file within 14 days of this order an amended complaint that establishes
subject matter jurisdiction by alleging: (1) the names and citizenship of each of its members;
and (2) the citizenship of Giordano. In alleging its own citizenship, Henry Technologies should
be aware that if any of its members are themselves limited liability companies, partnerships, or
other similar entities, then the citizenship of those members and partners must be alleged as
well. See Meryerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)

2

(“[T]he citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers
of partners or members there may be.”).

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff shall have until June 19, 2014 to file and serve an amended complaint
containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of
citizenship for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332; and
2) Failure to amend timely shall result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 5th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3