United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Notice of Removal premising federal
jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1).
“[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a
court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or
waived.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S.
500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil
Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). The Court has “an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from
any party.” Id.
diversity statute - 28 U.S.C. § 1332 - is satisfied upon
a showing of: (1) diversity of citizenship between the
parties; and (2) an amount in controversy in excess of $75,
000, exclusive of interest and costs. “Complete
diversity requires that all persons on one side of the
controversy be citizens of different states than all persons
on the other side.” Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling
Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing
Harrison v. Prather, 404 F.2d 267, 272 (5th Cir.
1968)) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
“[W]hen jurisdiction depends on citizenship,
citizenship must be distinctly and affirmatively
alleged.” Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco, Inc.
v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir.
1988) (internal quotation omitted) (See also Mullins v.
Testamerica, Inc., 2008 WL 4888576 (5th Cir. 2008)(per
citizenship of an individual is his or her domicile, meaning
the place where an individual resides and intends to remain.
See Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan
Soc., 334 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 2003). A corporation
shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign
state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or
foreign state where it has its principal place of business.
See Tewari De-Ox Systems, Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen,
L.L.C., 757 F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2014). “[T]he
citizenship of a partnership is determined by reference to
the citizenship of each of its partners.” See
Int'l Paper Co. v. Denkmann Associates, 116 F.3d
134, 135, 137 (5th Cir. 1997).
citizenship of a limited liability company
(“L.L.C.”), a limited partnership, or other
unincorporated association or entity is determined by the
citizenship of all its members. See Harvey, 542 F.3d
at 1079-80. “If the members are themselves
partnerships, LLCs, corporations or other form of entity,
their citizenship must be alleged in accordance with the
rules applicable to that entity, and the citizenship must be
traced through however many layers of members or partners
there may be.” Wright v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
NA, No. 09-cv-0482, 2009 WL 854644, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar.
Ferriday in its removal petition alleges that the Plaintiff
is a citizen of Mississippi. (Docs. 1, 1-1). The Notice of
Removal further alleges that Defendant Ferriday Healthcare,
LLC, (“Ferriday”) is incorrectly named as
“Consulate Health Care d/b/a Heritage Manor Health and
Rehabilitation Center Ferriday.” (Doc. 1). Ferriday
further alleges its sole member is Centennial Healthcare
Holding Company, LLC (“Centennial”), which is a
citizen of Delaware. (Doc. 1). Ferriday alleges
Centennial's sole member is LaVie Care Centers, LLC, also
a citizen of Delaware. (Doc. 1). However, Ferriday fails to
identify the members of LaVie Care Centers, LLC, and so on.
If any one of the members is not diverse, the limited
liability company is not diverse. Therefore, citizenship of
Ferriday is not clear from the pleadings, and the existence
of federal jurisdiction is in question.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order
upon Defendants IMMEDIATELY.
ORDERED that, not later than seven (7) days from service of
this Order on Sewell, Ferriday SHALL FILE: (1) a
Jurisdictional Memorandum setting forth specific facts,
including the identity of all members and state of
citizenship of each of its members, including the citizenship
of LaVie Care Centers, LLC, the sole member of Centennial,
and down the line until all members have been identified as
an individual or corporation, as of the date of filing, that
support a finding that the parties are diverse in
DONE AND SIGNED
 Ferriday adequately alleges the amount
in controversy requirement. (Doc. 1). Ferriday alleges Sewell
seeks compensatory damages, back pay, benefits, special
damages, reinstatement, and reasonable attorney fees. (Doc.
1). Ferriday alleges Sewell's back pay losses at the time
would approximate $27, 733.00. (Doc. 1). Ferriday further
alleges that by trial, assuming a one-year setting, back pay
would total $49, 500.00. (Doc. 1). Ferriday also alleges
front pay could vary between one to five years given Fifth
Circuit precedent. (Doc. 1). Ferriday further asserts this
would not include the compensatory damages, special damages,
and benefits Sewell seeks. (Doc. 1). Ferriday alleges the