Opinion
3:21-CV-75-DMB-RP
07-22-2022
HYDROCO, INC. PLAINTIFF v. LAURA STADLER (KORONCZOK) and GTB, LLC DEFENDANTS
ORDER
DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On April 8, 2021, Hydroco, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against Laura Stadler (Koronczok) and GTB, LLC.[ Doc. #1. The complaint, which alleges various state law claims, asserts diversity jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ 4.
This case was initially assigned to United States District Judge Michael P. Mills but reassigned to the undersigned district judge following Judge Mills' recusal on March 18, 2022. See Doc. #45.
The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Diversity jurisdiction requires that there be (1) complete diversity between the parties and (2) an amount in controversy more than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Complete diversity requires that “all persons on one side of the controversy .. be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.” Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 978 F.3d 280, 281 (5th Cir. 2020). To allege the citizenship of a corporation, the party asserting jurisdiction must “set out the principal place of business of the corporation as well as the state of its incorporation.” Id. at 282. To allege the citizenship of a limited liability company, the party asserting jurisdiction must “specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC ... involved in [the] litigation.” Id.
Here, the complaint alleges that Stadler may be served at a Texas address but it wholly fails to allege her citizenship. Doc. #1 at ¶ 2. And while the complaint alleges that “GTB, LLC, is a Texas corporation,” it fails to identify GTB's principal place of business. Id. at ¶ 3. To the extent GTB is a limited liability company as its name implies, the complaint still fails to properly allege GTB's citizenship because it fails to identify and “specifically allege the citizenship of every member.” Smith, 978 F.3d at 282. For these reasons, the complaint fails to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Hydroco, as the party invoking this Court's jurisdiction, is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within seven (7) days of the entry of this order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Within the same seven-day period, Hydroco, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, may file a statement of amendment regarding only the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint if it is able to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction.[
To the extent Hydroco and GTB are corporations, each must also file a corporate disclosure statement as required by this Court's Local Rules. See L.U. Civ. R. 7(c).
SO ORDERED.