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 Complaint [Doc. 1], filed by Plaintiff on March 4,
2019. 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 Complaint, the
applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, concludes that the Complaint fails to allege the
amount in controversy and the necessary facts of citizenship
in order to sustain diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the
Court will order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no
later than April 4, 2019, if the necessary
jurisdictional allegations can be made in compliance with the
dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
March 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Complaint. [Doc. 1]. She
alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the
matter. Id. at 2. She asserts that she “is a
resident of Curry County, New Mexico.” Id. at
1. She asserts that Defendant Walmart Inc. is
“incorporated in Delaware and doing business in New
Mexico.” Id. Next, she claims that Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., is a corporation
“incorporated in Arkansas and doing business in New
Mexico.” Id. at 2. Finally, she alleges that
Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited Partnership, is
“a foreign limited partnership doing business in New
Mexico.” Id. Plaintiff does not allege an
amount in controversy. See [Doc. 1].
plaintiff is required to assert the basis of subject-matter
jurisdiction in her complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Additionally,
the district court must be satisfied that, indeed, it has
subject-matter jurisdiction. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269, 1270-71 (10th Cir. 1998).
Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and thus may be
raised by the parties or sua sponte at any time.
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211
U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
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).
Jurisdiction under § 1332 requires diversity of
citizenship. The party asserting jurisdiction must
plead citizenship distinctly and affirmatively; allegations
of residence are not enough. Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C.
v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.
2015). Domicile, the equivalent of State citizenship,
requires more than mere residence; domicile exists only when
residence is coupled with an intention to remain in the state
indefinitely. Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d
1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014).
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).
Partnerships, limited partnerships, and limited liability
companies, however, are citizens of each and every State in
which any partner or member is a citizen. Carden v.
Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990) (stating the
citizenship of business entities is determined by the
citizenship of its members); Siloam Springs Hotel,
L.L.C., 781 F.3d at 1234 (remanding for district court
to determine the citizenship of all the members of the
plaintiff limited liability company); Penteco Corp. Ltd.
P'ship-1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519,
1522-23 (10th Cir. 1991) (remanding for district court to
determine citizenship of all of the partners of the plaintiff
the facts set forth in the Complaint do not sufficiently
establish Plaintiff's citizenship because they address
only her residence. Further, the allegations fail to
establish the citizenship of Defendants Walmart Inc. and
Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., because Plaintiff fails to allege
their principal place of business. Plaintiff's
allegations fail to establish the citizenship of Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited Partnership, because they fail
to allege the citizenship of each of its partners. Finally,
Plaintiff fails to establish that diversity jurisdiction
exists because she does not allege the amount in controversy.
See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 952
(10th Cir. 2008) (stating that the party invoking federal
jurisdiction has the burden to establish both the
diversity-of-citizenship and amount-in-controversy
IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
Plaintiff shall amend her Complaint 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 April 4,
2019. Specifically, Plaintiff must allege the
• Plaintiffs domicile;
• The principal place of business of Defendants Walmart
Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.;
• The citizenship of each and every partner of Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores East, ...