United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court sua sponte following its review of
the Notice of Removal [Doc. 1], filed by Defendant Panhandle
Maintenance, LLC, on December 27, 2018. The Court has a duty
to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists sua
sponte. See Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,
859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988). The Court, having
considered the Notice of Removal, the underlying Complaint,
the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, concludes that the Notice of Removal fails to
allege the necessary facts of citizenship to sustain
diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will order
Defendant Panhandle Maintenance to file an amended Notice of
Removal no later than January 24, 2019, if the necessary
jurisdictional allegations can be made in compliance with the
dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
December 27, 2018, Defendant Panhandle Maintenance removed
this case to federal court, asserting complete diversity
between the parties and that the amount in controversy
exceeded $75, 000. [Doc. 1] at 1. In support of its claim of
diversity of citizenship, Defendant alleges that
“Plaintiff is . . . an Oklahoma Limited Liability
Company, authorized to do business in New Mexico [and
D]efendant is . . . an [sic] Texas Limited Liability Company,
authorized to do business in New Mexico.” Id.
Accordingly, Defendant concludes that Plaintiff is a citizen
of Texas and Defendant is a citizen of Oklahoma. Id.
However, Defendant makes no allegation about the citizenship
of its members or the members of Plaintiff Big Chief Plaint
Services. See Id. at 1-2. Nor is any allegation made
in the Complaint about the citizenship of any member of
Plaintiff or Defendant. See Id. at 4-12.
federal statute providing for the removal of cases from state
to federal court was intended to restrict rather than enlarge
removal rights. Greenshields v. Warren Petroleum
Corp., 248 F.2d 61, 65 (10th Cir. 1957). Federal courts,
therefore, are to strictly construe the removal statutes and
to resolve all doubts against removal. Fajen v. Found.
Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982).
The removing party bears the burden of establishing the
requirements for federal jurisdiction. Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001).
courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where
the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,
000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens
of different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2018). When a
plaintiff files a civil action in state court over which the
federal district courts would have original jurisdiction
based on diversity of citizenship, the defendant may remove
the action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b)
the citizenship of a limited liability company is different
from determining the citizenship of a corporation under
§ 1332. A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the
State in which it is incorporated and in which it maintains
its principal place of business. § 1332(c). Limited
liability companies, however, are treated as partnerships for
citizenship purposes and are therefore citizens of each and
every State in which any member is a citizen. Siloam
Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233,
1234 (10th Cir. 2015).
the facts set forth in the Notice of Removal [Doc. 1] do not
sufficiently establish the citizenship of Plaintiff or
Defendant because they fail to allege the citizenship of each
of their members.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
Defendant shall amend the Notice of Removal to properly
allege diversity of citizenship, if such allegations can be
made in compliance with the dictates of Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than
January 24, 2019
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such an amended notice is
not filed by January 24, 2019, the Court may
dismiss this action without prejudice.