Capitol Watertown, LLC v. RadioShack Corporation
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER Regarding Jurisdiction. Proof of Diversity Citizenship due 2/3/2015. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/20/15. (jat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CAPITOL WATERTOWN, LLC,
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
14-cv-884-wmc
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION,
Defendant.
In this civil action, plaintiff Capital Watertown, LLC, alleges that defendant
RadioShack Corporation breached the terms of a lease between the parties. (Compl.
(dkt. #1-1).) Defendant removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, asserting
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Not. of Removal (dkt. #1) ¶ 3.)
Because the allegations in the complaint and the petition are insufficient, even when
considered together, to determine if diversity jurisdiction lies here, defendant will be
given an opportunity to file an amended notice of removal containing the necessary
factual allegations.
OPINION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Int’l Union of Operating Eng’r,
Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
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
1
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.
In its notice, defendant contends that diversity jurisdiction exists because (1) the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and (2) the parties are diverse.
(Not. of
Removal (dkt. #1) ¶ 3.) For the latter to be true, however, there must be complete
diversity, meaning plaintiff cannot be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.
Smart, 562 F.3d at 803. Unfortunately, defendant’s allegations as to plaintiff Capital
Watertown, LLC, prevent this court from determining its citizenship.
“The citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members,” yet
defendant has not alleged the citizenship of plaintiff’s members, making it impossible to
determine whether complete diversity exists. Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474
F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007). Instead, defendant alleges that plaintiff is “a domestic
corporation with its principal place of business within the State of Wisconsin.” (Not. of
Removal (dkt. #1) ¶ 4a.)
As the Seventh Circuit has instructed repeatedly, this
information is wholly irrelevant in deciding the citizenship of limited liability companies.
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv., 588 F.3d 420, 429 (7th Cir. 2009).
Before dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, defendant will
be given leave to file an amended notice of removal that establishes subject matter
jurisdiction by alleging the names and citizenship of each member of the plaintiff LLC.
2
In alleging the LLC’s citizenship, defendant should be aware that if the member or
members of the LLCs are themselves a limited liability company, partnership, or other
similar entity, then the citizenship of those members and partners must also be alleged as
well. See Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he
citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers
of partners or members there may be.”). Should defendant fail to plead diversity of
citizenship adequately within 14 days, this matter will be remanded to state court.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) defendant shall have until February 3, 2015, to file and serve an amended
notice of removal 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 remand of this matter for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 20th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
3
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?