UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROSHAUNDA JACKSON, ET AL
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
ORDER TO AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC removed this case from
state court asserting subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), diversity of citizenship. In its Notice of Removal the
defendant alleged the plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana,
“Syngenta was and continues to be a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in North Carolina,” and Monsanto
Company is a Delaware company with its principal place of business
When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, the citizenship of
each party must be distinctly and affirmatively alleged in
accordance with § 1332(a) and (c).2 Under § 1332(c)(1) a
corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it is
1 Record document number 1, ¶ 10. In the Notice of Removal,
“Syngenta” refers to Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. Defendant
alleged that the remaining, nondiverse defendants were improperly
joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Id., ¶ 13.
2 Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.
1991), citing, McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653,
654 (5th Cir. 1975)(quoting 2A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 8.10, at
1662); Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 397 (5th Cir.
Case 3:12-cv-00581-SDD-SCR Document 29 06/04/13 Page 1 of 3
incorporated, and of the state in which it has its principal place
of business. For purposes of diversity, the citizenship of a
limited liability company is determined by considering the
citizenship of all its members.3 The state where a limited
liability company is organized and where it has its principal place
of business does not determine its citizenship for the purpose of
§ 1332. Thus, to properly allege the citizenship of a limited
liability company, the party asserting jurisdiction must identify
each of the entity’s members and the citizenship of each member in
accordance with the requirements of § 1332(a) and (c).4
Defendant Syngenta’s jurisdictional allegations are not
sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. Syngenta alleged
jurisdiction in its Notice of Removal as if it is a corporation.
However, its name indicates that it is not a corporation; rather,
the “LLC” in its name indicates that it is a limited liability
company. If it is a limited liability company, it did not
correctly allege its citizenship in accordance with § 1332 and
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co.
3 Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th
Cir. 2008); see Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 110
S.Ct. 1015, 1021 (1990).
4 The same requirement applies to any member of a limited
liability company which is also a limited liability company or a
partnership. Turner Bros. Crane and Rigging, LLC v. Kingboard
Chemical Holding Ltd., 2007 WL 2848154 (M.D.La. Sept. 24,
2007)(when partners or members are themselves entities or
associations, citizenship must be traced through however many
layers of members or partners there are); Mullins, supra.
Case 3:12-cv-00581-SDD-SCR Document 29 06/04/13 Page 2 of 3
IT IS ORDERED that removing defendant Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC shall have 14 days to file an Amended Notice of
Removal which clarifies its organizational form, and if it is a
limited liability company properly alleges its citizenship.5
Alternatively, the defendant may file an amended answer which does
the same thing.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the case being
remanded without further notice for lack of subject matter
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 4, 2013.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5 Neither the defendant’s answer, record document number 4,
nor its Rule 7.1, Fed.R.Civ.P., disclosure statement, record
document number 5, provide the needed information.
Case 3:12-cv-00581-SDD-SCR Document 29 06/04/13 Page 3 of 3