SWM International, LLC v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 21-cv-02315-PAB SWM International, LLC,

Plaintiff, v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH, DYNAENERGETICS US, Inc., Defendants.

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff SWM International, LLC’s Response

to Order to Show Cause. Docket No. 42. Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶ 14. The Court ordered plaintiff to provide allegations that would allow the Court to determine the citizenship of plaintiff and defendant DynaEnergetics GmbH and to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction. Docket No. 35 at 5. Plaintiff’s response sufficiently alleges defendant DynaEnergetics GmbH’s citizenship. Docket No. 42 at 3-5. The response however, fails to allege the citizenship of one of the members of plaintiff SWM International, LLC (“SWM”). The citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of all of its members. See Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[I]n determining the citizenship of an unincorporated association for purposes of diversity, federal courts must include all the entities’ members.”). Plaintiff states that it has four members and one member, DRM Holdings, Inc. is “an entity incorporated under the laws of Texas.” Docket No. 42 at 3. A corporation, is deemed to be a citizen of “every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its

principal place of business.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff has not provided the principal place of business for DRM Holdings Inc. See Docket No. 42 at 3. Because the allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court to determine the citizenship of plaintiff and whether the Court has jurisdiction, it is ORDERED that, on or before April 25, 2022, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED April 18, 2022. BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge