United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
HOMELIFE IN THE GARDENS, LLC ET AL.
M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is defendant Leigh Landry's
motion to dismiss the above-captioned matter for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs-who base
jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of
citizenship)-oppose the motion.
foregoing reasons, the Court denies the motion.
1332(a)(1) provides that “[t]he 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.” Courts have long
understood § 1332 to demand complete diversity. See
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).
Complete diversity “requires that all persons on one
side of the controversy be citizens of different states than
all persons on the other side.” McLaughlin v.
Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir.
parties agree, and the Court does not dispute, that Landry is
a citizen of Louisiana. Landry argues that one of the
plaintiffs-HomeLife in the Gardens, LLC
(“HomeLife”)-is also a Louisiana citizen, thereby
violating the complete diversity rule.
citizenship of a LLC is determined by the citizenship of all
of its members.” Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling
Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). According to
Landry, F. Evans Schmidt-a Louisiana citizen and
HomeLife's counsel in this case-is a member of
HomeLife. As such, Landry contends that complete
diversity does not exist.
inquiry by the Court,  Schmidt declared under penalty of perjury
that he was indeed a member of HomeLife until October 7,
2016, when he sold his interest in the company. Schmidt also
submitted a bank record documenting the transfer of funds
pursuant to the sale on that date. The Court may accept
Schmidt's declaration and bank record as competent
evidence in its jurisdictional inquiry. See Menchaca v.
Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980)
(When a party “challenges the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction in fact, ” the Court may consider
“matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and
affidavits, ” to determine whether jurisdiction
exists.)- The Court therefore concludes that Schmidt was not
a member of HomeLife as of October 14, 2016, the filing date
of the present case.
such, complete diversity existed in this case on the date of
filing. Looking to that date, the Court possesses
subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See Thompson
v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 574 Fed.App'x 407, 408
(5th Cir. 2014) ("Diversity jurisdiction is based on the
facts at the time of filing.").
IT IS ORDERED that Landry's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
 R. Doc. No. 37. Landry's motion is
styled as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1)
(lack of subject matter jurisdiction), 12(b)(2) (lack of
personal jurisdiction), and 12(b)(3) (improper venue) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Id. However,
Landry limits her argument to Rule 12(b)(1) in her memorandum
in support of her motion. See R. Doc. ...