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 Amended Complaint [Doc. 4], filed by Plaintiff on
March 28, 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 Amended
Complaint, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises, concludes that the Amended Complaint
fails to allege the necessary facts of citizenship in order
to sustain diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will
order Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint no later
than May 3, 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, where she
alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this
matter. [Doc. 1] at 2. After reviewing the Complaint, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint due to
the following defects in her jurisdictional pleadings:
• Plaintiff did not allege her domicile;
• The principal places of business of Defendants Walmart
Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., were not alleged;
• Plaintiff did not allege the citizenship of each
partner of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited
• Plaintiff did not allege the amount in controversy.
[Doc. 3] at 3-4. Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on
March 28, 2019. [Doc. 4]. She still maintains that diversity
jurisdiction exists. Id. at 3. She alleges that she
is a citizen of Curry County, New Mexico. Id. at 1.
She states that Walmart Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and
has a principal place of business in Arkansas. Id.
at 1-2. She states that Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., is
incorporated in Arkansas and has a principal place of
business in Arkansas. Id. at 2. She alleges that
Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited Partnership, “is a
foreign limited partnership, with the citizenship of its
partners in Arkansas and other States of the United States
and doing business throughout New Mexico.” Id.
Finally, she alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000 and that her current settlement demand is $125, 000.
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). 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). Partnerships,
limited partnerships, and limited liability companies 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 limited partnership).
Amended Complaint fails to properly allege the citizenship of
Wal-Mart Stores East, Limited Partnership. Plaintiff alleges
that its partners are citizens of Arkansas and “other
States of the United States.” [Doc. 4] at 2. Simply
stating that its partners are citizens of “other
States” besides Arkansas does not meet Plaintiff's
burden of pleading the citizenship of Wal-Mart Stores East,
Limited Partnership, because those “other States”
could include New Mexico, where Plaintiff is a citizen. In
such an instance, the Court would lack ...