Ivanov, Ivan et al v. Nyhus, David et al

Filing 6

ORDER Requiring Proof of Diversity of Citizenship. Plaintiffs shall have until 6/12/2014 to file and serve an amended complaint containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/29/2014. (arw)

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

IVAN IVANOV and SLAVCHO GUEORGUIEV,
Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.
14-cv-382-jdp
DAVID NYHUS,
DSL TRANSPORT, LLC, and DOE,
Defendants.

In this civil action, plaintiffs Ivan Ivanov and Slavcho Gueorguiev bring state law claims
of negligence for injuries they suffered in a car crash. (Dkt. 5.) They allege that on July 27,
2012, while travelling on Interstate 80, a collision occurred between their vehicle and a
tractor/semi-trailer driven by defendant David Nyhus. Nyhus was an employee of defendant
DSL Transport, LLC, and the trailer was owned by an unknown defendant, Doe. Plaintiffs
allege that this court may exercise diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1).1
Because the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to determine if this is so, the court will
give plaintiffs 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

1

Plaintiffs actually cite “28 U.S.C. § 1332(1)(a)(1).” Because there is no subsection
“(1)(a)(1),” the court assumes plaintiffs were referring to § 1332(a)(1).

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, plaintiffs contend that the court has jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are diverse. (Dkt. 5.) For the latter to be true,
however, there must be complete diversity, meaning plaintiffs cannot be citizens of the same state
as any defendant. Smart, 562 F.3d at 803. Unfortunately, plaintiffs’ allegations as to DSL
Transport prevent this court from determining the company’s citizenship.
DSL Transport 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, plaintiffs have not alleged the citizenship of DSL Transport’s

members, making it impossible to determine whether complete diversity exists here. Instead,
plaintiffs allege that DSL Transport is “organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Wisconsin with its primary place of business in Arena, Wisconsin.” (Dkt. 5.) 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).
Before dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs will be
given leave to file within 14 days of this order an amended complaint that establishes subject
matter jurisdiction by alleging the names and citizenship of each member of DSL Transport. In
alleging citizenship, plaintiffs should be aware that if any member of the LLC is itself a limited
liability company, partnership, or other similar entity, 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

2

(7th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“[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) Plaintiffs shall have until June 12, 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 29th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3