Z., A. et al v. Remington Arms Company, LLC et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER Regarding Jurisdiction. Proof of Diversity of Citizenship due 1/19/2017. Failure to amend timely shall result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/5/2017. (kwf)

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

A.M.Z., a minor, N.A.Z., a minor,
and E.K.Z., a minor, by their guardian
BETH ANN PATTERSON,
Plaintiffs,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

16-cv-778-wmc

REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC
and SPORTING GOODS PROPERTIES, INC.,
Defendants.
In this civil action, minor plaintiffs A.M.Z., N.A.Z. and E.K.Z., by their guardian
Beth Ann Patterson, allege that defendants Remington Arms Company, LLC, and
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., are strictly liable for the wrongful death of the minors’
father, Robert Zick. (Compl. (dkt. #1).) Plaintiffs allege that this court may exercise its
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

(Id. at ¶ 4.)

Because the

allegations in the complaint are insufficient to determine if this is so, plaintiffs will be
given 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’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

1

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, plaintiffs contend that diversity jurisdiction exists because (1) the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and (2) the parties are diverse. (Compl. (dkt. #1) ¶ 4.) For
the latter to be true, however, there must be complete diversity, meaning plaintiffs cannot
be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Smart, 562 F.3d at 803. Unfortunately,
plaintiffs’ allegations as to defendant Remington Arms Company, LLC prevent this court
from determining its citizenship.
“The citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members,” yet plaintiffs
have not alleged the citizenship of defendant’s members, making it impossible to
determine whether complete diversity exists here. Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank,
474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007). Instead, plaintiff alleges defendant is “a Delaware
corporation” with its principal place of business at “870 Remington Drive, Madison,
North Carolina.” (Compl. (dkt. #1) ¶ 2.)

As the Seventh Circuit has instructed,

however, this information is wholly irrelevant in deciding the citizenship of a limited
liability company. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv., 588 F.3d 420, 429 (7th Cir. 2009).

2

Before dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs will
be given leave to file within 14 days an amended complaint that establishes subject
matter jurisdiction by alleging the names and citizenship of each member of the
defendant LLC. In alleging the LLC’s citizenship, plaintiffs 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.”).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) plaintiffs shall have until January 19, 2017, 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 January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3