Crawford v. EM Transportation Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
• Decided: October 12, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00147
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

MICHAEL CRAWFORD PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 1:22-CV-147-DMB-RP

EM TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC f/k/a Boral Transportation Services, LLC DEFENDANT

ORDER On July 20, 2022, Michael Crawford filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, against EM Transportation Services, LLC f/k/a Boral Transportation Services, LLC, asserting negligence claims arising from a vehicular accident involving Crawford and a tractor trailer operated by a Boral employee. Doc. #2. EM Transportation removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on October 11, 2022, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Specifically, the notice of removal alleges that Crawford is “an adult resident citizen of the State of Mississippi;” EM Transportation is “incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Utah, with its principal place of business in the State of Utah;” and “even though [Crawford] does not state a specific amount of damages sought, it is ‘facially apparent’ that [his] claims could satisfy the ‘amount in controversy’ … [because] the Complaint clearly alleges that [he] sustained ‘multiple tremendous impacts (which) caused significant bodily injury’ [and] seeks recovery of not only compensatory but also punitive damages ….” Id. at 1, 2. The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Diversity jurisdiction requires that there be (1) complete diversity between the parties and (2) an amount in controversy more than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Complete diversity requires that “all persons on one side of the controversy … be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.” Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 978 F.3d 280, 281 (5th Cir. 2020). To allege the citizenship of a corporation, a party must “set out the principal place of business of the

corporation as well as the state of its incorporation.” Id. at 282. But “[t]he citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of all its members. So, to establish diversity jurisdiction, a party must specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC.” Accadian Diagnostic Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Quality Toxicology, L.L.C., 965 F.3d 404, 408 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020) (emphasis added). Because EM Transportation’s name implies it is a limited liability company but the notice of removal alleges a state of incorporation and principal place of business for it, clarity is required regarding EM Transportation’s organizational form. To the extent it is a limited liability company, it failed to identify its members and the citizenship of each such that diversity

jurisdiction is lacking. To the extent it is a corporation as alleged in the notice of removal, EM Transportation failed to file a corporate disclosure statement as mandated by Local Rule 7(c). Accordingly, within seven (7) days of the entry of this order, EM Transportation must either file a statement of amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 to properly allege diversity jurisdiction or file the required corporate disclosure statement. SO ORDERED, this 12th day of October, 2022. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE