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 Plaintiffs on October 16,
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 Plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint no later than November 12,
2019, if the necessary jurisdictional allegations
can be made in compliance with the dictates of Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
October 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for
damages arising from a motor-vehicle accident. [Doc. 1].
Although they do not explicitly identify their ground for the
Court's jurisdiction, the Complaint alludes to diversity
of citizenship. See Id. Plaintiffs assert that they
“are residents of Arizona.” Id. at 1.
Plaintiffs further assert that Defendant Oppliger Companies,
LLC “is a limited liability company doing business in
New Mexico, ” that Defendant Oppliger Family Ltd.
“is a limited partnership doing business in New Mexico,
” and that Defendant Nutt “was a resident of New
Mexico, at all material times.” Id.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs claim more than $75, 000 in damages.
Id. at 3, 5, 6, 7. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs make no
allegation about the citizenship of any party or the
citizenship of any member of the Defendant entities.
See [Doc. 1].
plaintiff must assert the basis of subject-matter
jurisdiction in his 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 the citizenship of either Plaintiff or of Defendant
Nutt because they address only their states of residence.
See [Doc. 1]. Further, the allegations fail to establish
the citizenship of Defendant Oppliger Companies LLC and of
Defendant Oppliger Family Ltd., which Plaintiffs assert is a
partnership, because they fail to allege the citizenship of
each and every one of their members. See id.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
Plaintiffs must amend their 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 November 12,
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such an amended complaint
is not filed by November 12, 2019, the Court
may dismiss this action without prejudice.