United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
NOTICE AND ORDER
WILDER-DOOMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil action involving claims for damages asserted by
Harris Eugene Urda (“Harris”) and Rachel Urda
“Plaintiffs”) based upon the injuries allegedly
sustained by Harris on January 4, 2018, at a construction
site in Plaquemine, Louisiana, when Harris and the crane he
was operating were struck by a falling utility power
pole. On November 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed
their Original Complaint (“Complaint”) against
Valmont Industries, Inc. (“Valmont”), American
Piledriving Equipment, Inc. (“American”), and New
South Access & Environmental Solutions, L.L.C.
(“New South”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) in this Court, wherein they allege
that Defendants were negligent in failing to provide the
appropriate materials and equipment to enable Harris to
safely perform his job. Plaintiffs allege that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. However, Plaintiffs have not shown that
complete diversity exists because all of Plaintiffs'
citizenship allegations are deficient, as set forth below.
two of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are “a
married couple…and are individuals who both reside in
the state of Louisiana.” Paragraph three alleges that
“Defendant, Valmont Industries, Inc, is a foreign
corporation duly licensed to do business in the State of
Louisiana and doing business in the State of
Louisiana….” Paragraph four alleges that American
Piledriving Equipment, Inc. is a foreign corporation doing
business in the state (sic) of
Louisiana….” Finally, paragraph five alleges that
“Defendant, New South Access & Environmental
Solutions, L.L.C., is a foreign limited liability company
duly licensed to do business in the State of Louisiana and
doing business in the State of
information regarding the citizenship of all parties, and the
amount in controversy, is necessary to establish the
Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs clearly state that their
damages exceed $75, 000, and therefore, it appears that the
amount in controversy is likely met, particularly considering
the nature of the incident giving rise to Harris's claims
herein (i.e., being hit by a falling utility
pole). However, it is not clear that the parties
are diverse because citizenship has not been adequately
alleged as to any party.
respect to Plaintiffs, the Fifth Circuit has explained that,
“For 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). Furthermore, “[f]or adults, domicile is
established by physical presence in a place in connection
with a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to
remain there.” White v. I.N.S., 75 F.3d 213,
215 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S.Ct. 1597,
1608, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989)). Thus, to properly allege the
citizenship of an individual, a party must identify the
respect to corporations Valmont and American, for purposes of
diversity, “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 corporation.”). 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.
respect to limited liability company New South, “[t]he
citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by
the citizenship of all of 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 a 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., 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.”)
Plaintiffs must properly identify (1) Plaintiffs'
citizenships, i.e., their domiciles, (2)
corporations Valmont and American's citizenships,
i.e., principal places of business and places of
incorporation, and (3) limited liability company New
South's citizenship, i.e., the citizenship of
all of its members.
Defendants have not yet made an appearance in this case, the
Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether it may
exercise diversity jurisdiction in this matter. See
McDonal v. Abbott Laboratories, 408 F.3d 177, 182 n. 5
(5th Cir. 2005) (“[A]ny federal court may raise subject
matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Harris
Eugene Urda and Rachel Urda shall file a Motion to Substitute
the Complaint with a comprehensive amended Complaint, that
contains all of Plaintiffs' allegations, as revised,
amended, and/or supplemented, that adequately alleges the
citizenship of Plaintiffs and Defendants Valmont Industries,
Inc., American Piledriving Equipment, Inc., and New South
Access & Environmental Solutions, L.L.C. Plaintiffs shall
have fourteen (14) days from this Notice and Order to file
the Motion to Substitute. No further leave of court is
required to file the Motion to Substitute.
 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 8.
 R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 9-11.