Cone v. Greenwood Motor Lines Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03119
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Arden Cone, No. CV-24-03119-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Greenwood Motor Lines Incorporated,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint 16 (“FAC”). (Doc. 18.) This motion was filed before expiration of the amendment deadline 17 in the scheduling order (Doc. 15 at 1), so it is not subject to Rule 16’s good cause 18 standard and need only satisfy Rule 15’s more liberal amendment standard. Furthermore, 19 although the motion indicates that Defendant Greenwood’s counsel declined to consent to 20 the amendment (Doc. 18 at 2), Defendant Greenwood did not subsequently file an 21 opposition to the amendment request and the time to do so has expired. Thus, pursuant to 22 LRCiv 7.2(i), it would be permissible to summarily grant the motion as unopposed. 23 Nevertheless, the wrinkle here is that the proposed FAC seeks to add a new 24 defendant, R&L Carriers Shared Services, L.L.C. (“R&L”), but fails to properly allege 25 R&L’s citizenship. More specifically, although the proposed FAC alleges that R&L “is a 26 foreign limited liability company domiciled in Ohio and registered to do business in 27 Maricopa County, Arizona,” these details are irrelevant in assessing the citizenship of an 28 LLC, as an LLC “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are || citizens.” Johnson vy. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, to properly establish diversity jurisdiction “with respect to a limited || liability company, the citizenship of all of the members must be pled.” NewGen, LLC v. 4|| Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016). Determining the citizenship of R&L is 5 || imperative because this case was removed solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction 6|| (Doc. 1), so if R&L is a citizen of Arizona, this would destroy complete diversity and complicate the decision whether to allow amendment. See generally Bailey v. Bayer 8 || CropScience L.P., 563 F.3d 302, 307-08 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that “[i]f a potential 9|| defendant, whose joinder would destroy jurisdiction, is determined to be indispensable, || the district court must either permit joinder and grant remand under § 1447(e), or dismiss 11 || the action pursuant to Rule 19(b)” and that “when a trial court grants a plaintiff leave to 12 || amend the complaint by naming additional defendants, and the plaintiff fails to inform 13 || the court that one or more of those defendants will destroy diversity, the trial court may || reconsider its earlier decision’). 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the FAC (Doc. 18) is 17|| denied without prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may, within 14 days of the issuance □□ of this order, file a renewed motion for leave to file a FAC that includes, as an || attachment, a proposed FAC with proper jurisdictional allegations regarding the citizenship of R&L. If those allegations establish that R&L is not a citizen of Arizona, the motion will be summarily granted. If those allegations establish that R&L is a citizen || of Arizona, the motion must address why amendment should be allowed despite its || diversity-destroying effect and Defendant Greenwood may file an opposition within 14 25 || days of when the motion is filed. 26 Dated this 28th day of July, 2025. 27 Po } □□ Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge _2-