United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
DONALD P. BOUDREAUX
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is an Amended Complaint, filed by plaintiff Donald
P. Boudreaux.Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court
on November 1, 2017, asserting that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
diversity jurisdiction. On November 2, 2017, Plaintiff was
ordered file an amended Complaint properly setting forth the
citizenship particulars required to establish that the Court
has diversity jurisdiction over this case. Pursuant to the
November 2, 2017 Order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
which contains the following allegations regarding
citizenship of the parties:
5. Homeowner is a person of the full age of majority and is
domiciled in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, and at all times
relevant herein was the owner of property located at
municipal address 7525 Colonial Dr., Denham Springs, LA
6. Insurer, LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, is a foreign
insurance company authorized to and presently doing business
in Livingston Parish, Louisiana.
The Amended Complaint further asserts that,
“Insurer's domicile is 2711 Centerville Road, Ste.
400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. Its principal place of
business is 99 High Street, Floor 24, Boston, Massachusetts
information regarding the citizenship of all parties is
necessary to establish the Court's diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Citizenship has not been
adequately alleged in the Amended Complaint. While the
citizenship of Donald Boudreaux has been adequately alleged,
citizenship of Lexington Insurance Company
(“Lexington”) has not been properly alleged. Like
the original Complaint,  the Amended Complaint does not allege
whether Lexington is incorporated. The Fifth Circuit has
held, “For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a
corporation is a citizen of the state in which it was
incorporated and the state in which it has its principal
place of business.” Getty Oil, Div. of Texaco v.
Ins. Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir.
1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). Thus, to
properly allege the citizenship of a corporation, a party
must identify the place of incorporation and the
corporation's principal place of business in accordance
with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
the Fifth Circuit has also held that, “[A]n
unincorporated association is considered to have the
citizenship of its members.” Royal Ins. Co. of
America v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d 877, 882 (5th
Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Further, the Fifth Circuit has
held that for purposes of diversity, the citizenship of a
limited liability company is determined by considering the
citizenship of all its members. Harvey v. Grey Wolf
Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus,
to properly allege the citizenship of a limited liability
company, a party must identify each of the members of the
limited liability company and the citizenship of each member
in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) and (c). The same requirement applies to any member
of a limited liability company which is also a limited
liability company. See, Turner Bros. Crane and Rigging,
LLC v. Kingboard Chemical Holding Ltd., Civ. A. No.
06-88-A, 2007 WL 2848154, at *4 (M.D. La. Sept. 24, 2007)
(“when partners or members are themselves entities or
associations, the citizenship must be traced through however
many layers of members or partners there may be, and failure
to do [so] can result in dismissal for want of
jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall
have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file a
motion to substitute the Amended Complaint with a
comprehensive amended complaint (i.e., it may not
refer back to or rely on any previous pleading), that
includes all of Plaintiff's numbered allegations, as
revised, supplemented, and/or amended and adequately alleges
the citizenship of all parties, which will become the
operative complaint in this matter without reference to any
other document in the record.
 R. Doc. 4.
 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 3.
 R. Doc. 2.
 R. Doc. 4 at ¶¶ 5 and