Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02664-PAB
09-20-2019
DAVID S. ELLIS, Plaintiff, v. H LAZY P CATTLE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court takes up this matter sua sponte on the complaint [Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff states that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 3.
In every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal court must satisfy itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if doing so requires sua sponte action. See Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1297 (10th Cir. 1980). Absent an assurance that jurisdiction exists, a court may not proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of jurisdiction on their own, regardless of parties' apparent acquiescence. First, it is the Court's duty to do so. Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988). Second, regarding subject matter jurisdiction, "the consent of the parties is irrelevant, principles of estoppel do not apply, and a party does not waive the requirement by failing to challenge jurisdiction." Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (internal citations omitted). Finally, delay in addressing the issue only compounds the problem if, despite much time and expense having been dedicated to the case, a lack of jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr. Co., No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28, 2009).
"The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter." Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Pursuant to that section, "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The facts presently alleged are insufficient to establish the citizenship.
Plaintiff alleges the parties are completely diverse because, at all relevant times, he "resided in Dallas County, Texas" and defendant "was a Colorado company headquartered and operating in Hayden, Routt County, Colorado." Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶¶ 1-3. These allegations are deficient for two reasons. First, domicile, not residency or mailing address, is determinative of citizenship. Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514 (10th Cir. 1972) ("[A]llegations of mere 'residence' may not be equated with 'citizenship' for the purposes of establishing diversity."); see also Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) ("'Domicile' is not necessarily synonymous with 'residence,' and one can reside in one place but be domiciled in another." (citations omitted)). Thus, the fact that plaintiff "resided" in Texas does not establish that he is a citizen of Texas for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Second, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined not by its state of organization or principal place of business, but by the citizenship of all of its members. See Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015) ("[I]n determining the citizenship of an unincorporated association for purposes of diversity, federal courts must include all the entities' members."). Accordingly, whether defendant is a "Colorado company" headquartered in the state is irrelevant to the issue of defendant's citizenship.
Because plaintiff's allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court to determine the parties' citizenship or whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, see United States ex rel. General Rock & Sand Corp. v. Chuska Dev. Corp. , 55 F.3d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir. 1995) ("The party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction." (internal quotation marks omitted)), it is
ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 30, 2019, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED September 20, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge