United States District Court, D. New Mexico
THE TRAILS, LLC, OVERPECK MANAGEMENT, LLC, and GALWAY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Plaintiffs,
STEVEN J. METRO INDIVIDUALLY and d/b/a METRO REAL ESTATE, LLC, WILSON & COMPANY INC., ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS, and DANIEL AGUIRRE, Defendants.
FASHING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the court sua sponte for
jurisdictional purposes. Plaintiffs The Trails, LLC
(“The Trails”) and Overpeck Management, LLC
(“Overpeck”) are both Nevada limited liability
companies. Doc. 38 ¶¶ 4, 5. Although plaintiff
Galway Construction, Inc., (“Galway”), is
identified in the caption as an LLC, in the body of the
amended complaint, Galway is identified as “Galway
Construction, Inc., . . . a Nevada Corporation, doing
business in New Mexico.” Id. ¶ 6. The
plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges claims against
defendant Steven Metro, individually and d/b/a Metro Real
Estate, LLC. Id. at 1 (caption), ¶¶
7, 87-96, 118-87. Plaintiffs also allege claims against
Daniel Aguirre, “a citizen of New Mexico, ” and
Wilson & Company, Inc., (“Wilson”), described
in the amended complaint as “a Kansas Corporation,
doing business in New Mexico.” Id.
¶¶ 8, 9, 97-172, 177-87.
amended complaint alleges subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because plaintiffs have
alleged a claim against Steven Metro under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 USC § 1961,
et seq., (“RICO”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1964. Doc. 38 ¶¶ 87-96. The plaintiffs'
other claims are brought under New Mexico state law, and
plaintiffs allege they are a part of the same case or
controversy as the RICO claim, which gives the Court
supplemental jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1367.
Doc. 38 ¶ 12. “A claim is part of the
same case or controversy if it derives from a common nucleus
of operative fact.” Price v. Wolford, 608 F.3d
698, 702-03 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court may exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725
court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction
over a plaintiff's state law claim if:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “The decision [of] whether to
decline jurisdiction rests in the court's
discretion.” Busey v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of
Cty. of Shawnee, Kansas, 163 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1295 (D.
Metro has moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' RICO
claim. See Doc.129. If the Court should grant this
motion, this Court would no longer have original jurisdiction
over any remaining claim based on a federal question. The
Tenth Circuit has held that “[w]hen all federal claims
have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should,
decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state
claims.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d
1228, 1248 (10th Cir.2011) (quoting Smith v. City of Enid
ex rel. Enid City Comm'n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th
other hand, this case may be between citizens of different
states, allowing for original jurisdiction based on the
diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Original diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a), requires complete diversity of citizenship among the
parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75, 000.00.
Johnson v. Rodrigues (Orozco), 226 F.3d 1103, 1107
(10th Cir. 2000), as amended on denial of reh'g and
reh'g en banc (Oct. 12, 2000). “[D]iversity
jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 only when
there is complete diversity of citizenship.” Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377
(1978). Complete diversity of citizenship “exists only
if no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same
state.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d
1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). For diversity jurisdiction
purposes, “a person is a citizen of a state if the
person is domiciled in that state, ” that is, if the
“person resides there and intends to remain there
indefinitely.” Id. Because of the potential
that the RICO claim may be dismissed on summary judgment, the
Court may need to determine whether it has jurisdiction based
on diversity. The information provided in plaintiffs'
amended complaint is insufficient to determine whether the
Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Court precedent makes clear that in determining the
citizenship of an unincorporated association for purposes of
diversity, federal courts must include all the entities'
members.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century
Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015)
(citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185,
195-96 (1990)) (other citations omitted); see also
Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S.Ct.
1012, 1015 (2016) (affirming the Tenth Circuit's holding
that “the citizenship of any ‘non-corporate
artificial entity' is determined by considering all of
the entity's ‘members'”). “[T]he
relevant time period for determining the existence of
complete diversity is the time of the filing of the
complaint.” Siloam Springs Hotel, 781 F.3d at
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
“[P]rincipal place of business” is best read as
referring to the place where a corporation's officers
direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's
activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have
called the corporation's “nerve center.” And
in practice it should normally be the place where the
corporation maintains its headquarters-provided that the
headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and
coordination, i.e., the “nerve center, ” and not
simply an office ...