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 August 26,
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 Complaint, the
applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, concludes that the Complaint fails to allege 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 October 8,
2019, if the necessary jurisdictional allegations
can be made in compliance with the dictates of Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
August 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Complaint. [Doc. 1]. It
alleges that the Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that it
“is a foreign entity doing business in the State of New
Mexico and maintains its principal place of business in
Texas.” Id. at 1. It then alleges that
Defendants Bert and Montie Carol Madera are
“resident[s] of Lea County, in the State of New Mexico,
and . . . owner[s] and manager[s] of Pitchfork Cattle
Company, LLC.” Id. Plaintiff next asserts that
Defendant Pitchfork Cattle Company, LLC
(“Pitchfork”) “was a New Mexico corporation
based out of Lea County, New Mexico.” Id. at
2. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000. Id.
plaintiff is required to assert the basis of subject-matter
jurisdiction in its 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. 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 Hotel, 781 F.3d
the facts set forth in the Complaint do not sufficiently
establish diversity of jurisdiction for three reasons. First,
though Plaintiff-an LLC-alleges that it is a foreign entity
doing business in New Mexico, it makes no allegations
regarding the citizenship of each of its members.
See [Doc. 1] at 1. Additionally, though Plaintiff
alleges that its principal place of business is in Texas,
such information is irrelevant when determining the
citizenship of an LLC. See Siloam Springs Hotel, 781
F.3d at 1234. Second, Plaintiff improperly alleges the
residence- not domicile-of the two individual
Defendants. See [Doc. 1] at 1. A person's State
of domicile (not residence) determines that person's
citizenship for diversity-of-jurisdiction purposes.
Siloam Springs Hotel, 781 F.3d at 1238. Finally,
though Plaintiff alleges that Bert and Montie Carol Madera
are owners and managers of Pitchfork-an LLC-Plaintiff does
not list the State of citizenship of each member of
Pitchfork. See [Doc. 1] at 2. Plaintiff must list
the State of citizenship of each of Pitchfork's
members-which may or may not include Bert and Montie
Carol Madera-in order to properly allege its citizenship.
Siloam Springs Hotel, 781 F.3d at 1234.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
Plaintiff shall amend its 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 October 8,
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such an amended complaint
is not filed by October 8, 2019, the Court
may dismiss this action without prejudice.