You're viewing Docket Item 8 from the case Highpoint Partners LLC et al v. Pathfinder LL&D Insurance Group LLC et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 5:13-cv-00687-D Document 8 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HIGHPOINT PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PATHFINDER/LL&D INSURANCE
GROUP, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-687-D

O R D E R

Upon review of the Notice of Removal, the Court finds insufficient factual allegations to

support the assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.1 All named

plaintiffs and one defendant are alleged to be limited liability companies. Federal appellate courts

have unanimously held that a limited liability company should not be treated like a corporation

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), but like a limited partnership or other unincorporated association

under Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990).2 The Notice of Removal contains

no information concerning the citizenship of the members or owners of parties that are limited

liability companies and, therefore, fails to allege the citizenship of these parties. Further, the Notice

1 The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists”
and may raise the issue sua sponte at any time. 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d
1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).

2 See Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010); Harvey v. Grey Wolf
Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008); Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, 585 F.3d 1003,
1005 (6th Cir. 2009); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006);
see also Pramco, LLC ex rel. CFSC Consortium, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina, Inc., 435 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir.
2006); General Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 2004); GMAC Commercial
Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 828-29 (8th Cir. 2004); Rolling Greens MHP, L.P.
v. Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004); Handelsman v. Bedford Village
Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 2000); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir.
1998).

Case 5:13-cv-00687-D Document 8 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2

of Removal fails to allege facts to establish the citizenship of the corporate parties, which are

citizens of both the state of incorporation and the principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(c)(1).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal to

allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction not later than July 24, 2013.3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2013.



3 The exhibits attached to the Notice of Removal need not be re-filed, but may be incorporated by

reference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c).

2