United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
GEORGE J. FOWLER, III
ATCHITY PRODUCTIONS, LLC, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court now examines subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte. This Court is duty-bound to examine the basis of
subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte. Subject matter jurisdiction in this case
is premised upon diversity of citizenship. Cases arising
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 require complete
diversity.“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
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “the citizenship of
a LLC is determined by the citizenship of all of its
members.” “A party seeking to establish
diversity jurisdiction must specifically allege the
citizenship of every member of every LLC or partnership
involved in a litigation.” A party's citizenship
“cannot be established argumentatively or by mere
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Atchity
Productions, LLC (“Atchity”) is “a
California limited liability corporation, with its principal
place of business in Los Angeles, CA
90036.” Plaintiff fails to state the citizenship
of every member of Defendant Atchity. Accordingly, the Court
cannot determine the citizenship of Atchity, and therefore
the Court cannot determine whether it has jurisdiction over
failure to properly allege jurisdiction is not
fatal. 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 discretion to
permit amendment under § 1653 turns on the nature of the
jurisdictional defect. Where “jurisdictional problems
are of the ‘technical' or ‘formal'
variety, they fall squarely within the ambit of §
1653.” 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.”Accordingly, Plaintiff is
granted leave to amend his Complaint to allege distinctly and
affirmatively the jurisdictional facts that give rise to
diversity jurisdiction in this case.
foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
to adequately allege diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff is
granted leave to amend his Complaint to allege the members of
Defendant Atchity and the citizenship of those members.
Plaintiff shall amend his Complaint to properly allege facts
supporting diversity jurisdiction within 30 days of this
Order. Failure to timely file the affidavit will result in
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d
548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008).
 See Doc. 1 at 2; 28 U.S.C.
 See Stiftung v. Plains Mktg.,
L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations
McClaughlin v. Mississippi Power
376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks and ...