Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-02607_de104> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02607_de104 RegisterActionDate "2019-03-19" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02607_de104 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: The Court is prepared to rule upon EE3's pending motion for summary judgment. However, in reviewing the matter in preparation of that ruling, it has come to the Court's attention that the record does not presently permit the Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter.Mr. BD13E24 invokes the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction premised upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Amended Complaint 43 indicates that Mr. BD13E24 is a citizen of Idaho. It alleges that EE3 is "a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado... with [a] business address" in Boulder, Colorado. It alleges that Defendant FMC Technologies, Inc. ("FMC") is "a corporation under the laws of the State of Texas... with a business address" in Houston, Texas. But the Amended Complaint also refers to "EE3 LLC," indicating that it is in fact a limited liability company, not a corporation. The distinction is important: under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)(A), (B), a corporation's citizenship is based on its state of incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of business. In contrast, the citizenship of limited liability companies and other non-corporate entities is determined by the citizenship of each of their members. Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Surety Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015). The Amended Complaint does not identify EE3's membership, much less each member's citizenship (including, recursively, members who are themselves limited liability companies or the like). In addition, assuming that the Defendants are corporations, statements of their business address are insufficient to establish their principal place of business. A business may have many business addresses, but only one nerve center. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010). Because Mr. BD13E24 is the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the burden is on him to establish that such jurisdiction exists. Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 878 (10th Cir. 2017). Thus, Mr. BD13E24 failure to adequately allege facts necessary to establish the citizenship of EE3 (and FMC) deprives the Court of sufficient facts upon which to base subject matter jurisdiction.In the absence of a sufficient showing of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court is unable to proceed to consider the merits of the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, on or before March 25, 2019, Mr. BD13E24 shall file a Second Amended Complaint that adequately addresses the citizenship of the Defendants or otherwise show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon the filing of a sufficient Second Amended Complaint, the Court will render a ruling on the pending motion. By Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 3/19/19. Text Only Entry (msklc2, ) (Entered: 03/19/2019)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02607_de104 AdministrativeID "105" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02607_de104 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02607_de104 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-02607_de42 @default.