United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
WILLIAM D. COLEMAN
ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. ET AL.
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is Plaintiffs' Joint Rule 25(a)(1) Motion for
Substitution of Parties Plaintiff and Motion for Leave to
File Plaintiffs' First Supplemental and Amended Complaint
(the “Motion to Substitute and
Amend”). Per the Motion to Substitute and Amend,
Pamela Coleman and Jody Coleman Nolte (collectively,
“Movants”) seek to be substituted in William
Coleman's stead as plaintiffs and to “formally
allege causes of action sounding in survival and wrongful
death.”Movants assert that William D. Coleman, the
named plaintiff in this suit, died from malignant
mesothelioma on November 8, 2016, and that Movants are Mr.
Coleman's statutory heirs and the proper persons to
pursue survival and wrongful death claims.
case was removed from state district court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332 based upon complete diversity of
citizenship. Per Movant's proposed First
Supplemental and Amended Complaint, Movants continue to
assert this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
February 1, 2017, Movants filed the instant Motion to
Substitute and Amend. However, Movants do not state whether
defendants consent to or oppose the proposed amendment.
Moreover, the proposed First Supplemental and Amended
Complaint does not allege the citizenship of the parties. The
proposed First Supplemental and Amended Complaint includes no
allegations regarding the citizenship of Pamela Coleman and
Jody Coleman Nolte. The Fifth Circuit has explained that,
“[f]or diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile;
mere residence in the State is not sufficient.” Mas
v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974) (citations
omitted). Further, Movants' allegation that the
defendants are “all foreign corporations” is
insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. A
corporation is a citizen of its place of incorporation and
its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
See also, Getty Oil, Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of North
America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988)) (In
diversity cases involving corporations, “allegations of
citizenship must set forth the state of incorporation as well
as the principal place of business of each
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Movants file a motion to substitute the proposed pleading (R.
Doc. 57-6) with a proposed pleading that properly sets forth
the citizenship of the parties.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movants shall state in their
motion to substitute whether defendants consent to the filing
of the First Supplemental and Amended Complaint. Movants
shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file
the motion to substitute without further leave of Court.
 R. Doc. 57.
 R. Doc. 57, p. 1.
 R. Doc. 57-1, p. 3.
 R. Doc. 1.
 R. Doc. 57-6, ¶ 4.
 In the Notice of Removal, Pilkington
North America, Inc. alleges that it is “a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in
Ohio.” R. Doc. 1, p. 3. In its Corporate Disclosure
Statement, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company states that it
“is a company organized under the laws of the State of
Massachusetts and for federal court jurisdiction/diversity of
citizenship disclosure purposes, the principal place of
business is 175 Berkeley Street, Boston,
Massachusetts.” R. Doc. 3, p. 1. In its corporate
disclosure statement, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company
alleges that it is “an insurance company incorporated
under the laws of the State of Connecticut with its principal
place of business in Connecticut.” R. Doc. 5, ¶ 2.
“Safety National Casualty Corporation is an insurance
company organized under the laws of the State of Missouri,
and for Federal court jurisdiction/diversity of citizenship
disclosure purposes, its principal place of business is in
the State of Missouri.” R. Doc. 6, p. 1. Bedivere
Insurance Company does not assert its citizenship in its
Corporate Disclosure Statement. R. Doc. 13. The Notice of
Removal only alleges that Bedivere Insurance Company
“is a foreign insurer” and a “Pennsylvania
company.” R. Doc. 1, p. 3. As explained herein, an
allegation that Bedivere Insurance Company is a foreign
insurer or Pennsylvania company is not a sufficient
allegation for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and Movants
must instead allege Bedivere Insurance Company's place of
incorporation and principal place of business (assuming that
Bedivere Insurance Company is a corporation). In the event
Bedivere Insurance Company is an unincorporated association,
the citizenship of such association is determined by
considering the citizenship of all its members. See,
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077,
1080 (5th Cir. 2008). To properly allege the citizenship of
an unincorporated association, a party must identify each of
the members of the association and the citizenship of each
member in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a) and ...