United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
WENCONG LIN a/k/a LANCER LIN and PACIFIC TITLING, LLC, Plaintiffs,
ST. LOUIS MOTORSPORTS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER OF REMAND
CHARLES A. SHAW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on review of the file. On August
30, 2019, the Court issued an Order Concerning Removal (the
“Order”) that identified a specific defect in the
notice of removal and petition's jurisdictional
allegations and ordered defendant St. Louis Motorsports, LLC
to “file an Amended Notice of Removal alleging
sufficient facts to establish plaintiff Pacific Titling,
LLC's citizenship by alleging the state(s) of citizenship
of each of its members, both at the time of filing and the
time of removal.” (Order, Doc. 12 at 4.) The Court
further ordered that “if defendant does not timely and
fully comply with this Order, this matter will be remanded to
the state court from which it was removed, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id.) As
defendant has not filed an amended notice of removal, the
Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
action and must remand it.
filed this action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, on August 6, 2019, alleging state law claims for
breach of contract, rescission and restitution, fraud, and
specific performance. On August 28, 2019, defendant removed
the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1332(a), 1441, and 1446.
have an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Hertz Corp.
v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). “Federal courts
are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that
jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs
from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the
United States and is inflexible and without exception.”
Kessler v. National Enters., Inc., 347 F.3d 1076,
1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and quoted case
omitted). Statutes conferring diversity jurisdiction are to
be strictly construed. Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967
F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992).
removal cases, the district court reviews the petition
pending at the time of removal to determine the existence of
jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab
Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938). The district court may also
look to the notice of removal to determine its jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii); Ratermann v. Cellco
P'ship, 2009 WL 1139232, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 28,
2009). The removing defendant, as the party invoking
jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving that all
prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Central Iowa
Power Co-op. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator,
Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009) “[A]ll
doubts about federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor
of remand[.]” Central Iowa Power Co-op., 516
F.3d at 912.
diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants is
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Buckley v. Control
Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6 (8th Cir. 1991).
“Complete diversity of citizenship exists where no
defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any
plaintiff holds citizenship.” OnePoint Solutions,
LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007).
“When jurisdiction is based on diversity of
citizenship, the pleadings . . . must set forth with
specificity the citizenship of the parties.”
Barclay Square Props. v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass'n of Minneapolis, 893 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir.
1990) . To establish complete diversity of citizenship, a
complaint must include factual allegations as to each
party's state(s) of citizenship. Sanders v. Clemco
Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987);
see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In a removed action,
diversity must exist both when the state petition is filed
and when the notice of removal is filed. Ryan ex rel.
Ryan v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d
816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001).
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a
limited liability company is the citizenship of each of its
members. E3 Biofuels, LLC v. Biothane, LLC, 781 F.3d
972, 975 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoted case omitted). Thus, for
limited liability companies, the Court must examine the
citizenship of each member of the limited liability company
to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction. See
GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard Dep't Stores,
Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004)
Order, the Court set forth the foregoing principles and found
that neither the petition nor the notice of removal contained
allegations of the relevant jurisdictional facts as to
plaintiff Pacific Titling, LLC's citizenship: the
state(s) of which each of its members were citizens at the
time the petition was filed and at the time of removal, as
required by GMAC and Ryan. Defendant was
ordered to file an amended notice of removal alleging facts
to show the existence of the requisite diversity of
citizenship of the parties. The Court stated,
“Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), which
requires that the notice of removal contain a “short
and plain statement” of the grounds for removal and be
signed pursuant to Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
this Order requires only allegations of the requisite
jurisdictional facts.” Defendant did not file an
amended notice of removal and the time to do so has passed.
foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' petition and
defendant's notice of removal do not contain the
requisite allegations of jurisdictional facts as to plaintiff
Pacific Titling, LLC's citizenship sufficient to
establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. The Court
therefore concludes that defendant, having been given notice
and an opportunity to amend its notice of removal, has failed
to meet its burden to plead with specificity facts showing
that complete diversity of citizenship exists among the
parties. See Barclay Square Props., 893 F.2d at 969.
As a result, this case must be remanded to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is
REMANDED to the Circuit Court for St. Louis
County, Missouri, from which it was ...