Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LLC v. Hyundai Motor America Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

December 3, 2018

EDDIE TOURELLE'S NORTHPARK HYUNDAI, LLC
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL.

         SECTION: “H” (2)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JANE TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The Court now examines subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Defendants have failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction in their Notice of Removal. Accordingly, Defendants shall amend their notice to correct this jurisdictional defect within 20 days of the entry of this Order.

         This Court is duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.[1] Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised upon diversity of citizenship.[2] Cases arising under § 1332 require, inter alia, complete diversity of citizenship.[3] "The concept of complete diversity requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side."[4]

         For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the "citizenship of a LLC is determined by the citizenship of all of its members."[5] Accordingly, the party invoking federal jurisdiction "must list the citizenship of each member of each limited liability company to properly allege diversity of jurisdiction."[6] Defendants assert that both Plaintiff Eddie Tourrelle's Nortpark Hyundai, LLC and Defendant Genesis Motor America, LLC are limited liability companies. However, Defendants fail to allege the citizenship of each member of these companies. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine the citizenship of Plaintiff or Defendant GMA.

         Defendant's failure to properly allege its citizenship is not fatal.[7] 28 U.S.C. § 1653 provides that "[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts." A district court's decision to permit amendment under § 1653 turns on the nature of the jurisdictional defect.[8] Where "jurisdictional problems are of the 'technical' or 'formal' variety, they fall squarely within the ambit of § 1653."[9] Thus, amendment should be allowed where "'diversity jurisdiction was not questioned by the parties and there is no suggestion in the record that it does not in fact exist.'"[10] The record in this matter does not reveal, nor has any party argued, that diversity jurisdiction is not present. Accordingly, Defendants are granted leave to amend the Notice of Removal to allege "distinctly and affirmatively" the jurisdictional facts that give rise to diversity jurisdiction.

         CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to adequately allege diversity of citizenship. Defendants are granted leave to amend the Notice of Removal within 20 days from the entry of this Order. Failure to file timely an amended notice will result in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

---------

Notes:

[1] Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Union Planters Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004)).

[2] See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

[3] Stiftung v. Plains Mktg., L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

[4] McClaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.