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 on June
7, 2019. The Court has a duty to determine sua sponte whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Tuck v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th
Cir. 1988). The Court, having considered the Notice of
Removal, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises, concludes that the Notice fails to
allege the necessary facts of citizenship in order to sustain
diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will order
Defendant to file an amended notice of removal no later than
July 10, 2019, if the necessary
jurisdictional allegations can be made in compliance with the
dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7, 2019, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. [Doc. 1] at 1-6. The Notice asserts that
there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendant
and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
Id. at 5. In support of its claim of diversity of
citizenship, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of
New Mexico. Id. at 3. Further, as to its own
citizenship, Defendant alleges that “Patterson-UTI
Drilling Company LLC is organized under the laws of Texas,
and its principal place of business is in Texas.”
Id. Defendant makes no allegation about the
citizenship of its members. See id.
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., Inc., 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.
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, provided that no defendant is a
citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b). 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
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. See § 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, 781 F.3d at 1234.
the facts set forth in the Notice of Removal [Doc. 1] do not
sufficiently establish the citizenship of Defendant. The
Notice of Removal alleges that Defendant was organized under
the laws of Texas and has its principal place of business in
Texas, id. at 3, but those facts are inadequate
because Defendant is a limited liability company rather than
a corporation. The Court will give Defendant the opportunity
to file an amended notice of removal to properly allege the
citizenship each and every one of its members.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
Defendant 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 July 10,
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such an amended notice is
not filed by July 10, 2019, the Court may
dismiss this action without prejudice.