United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. BRIMMER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court takes up this matter sua sponte on
plaintiff's amended complaint [Docket No. 19]. Plaintiff
states that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Docket No.
19 at 3, ¶ 15.
every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal
court must satisfy itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if
doing so requires sua sponte action. Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City &
County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1297 (10th Cir. 1980).
Absent an assurance that jurisdiction exists, a court may not
proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great
Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005).
Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of jurisdiction on
their own, regardless of parties' apparent acquiescence.
First, it is the Court's duty to do so. Tuck v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th
Cir. 1988). Second, regarding subject matter jurisdiction,
“the consent of the parties is irrelevant, principles
of estoppel do not apply, and a party does not waive the
requirement by failing to challenge jurisdiction.”
Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de
Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (internal citations
omitted). Finally, delay in addressing the issue only
compounds the problem if it turns out that, despite much time
and expense having been dedicated to a case, a lack of
jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed or remanded regardless
of the stage it has reached. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Pinkard Constr. Co., No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL
2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28, 2009).
well established that “[t]he party invoking federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such
jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v.
Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.
2004). Plaintiff invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as the
basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Docket No.
19 at 3, ¶ 15. Section 1332(a)(1) states: “The
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between  citizens of different States.” The facts as
presently averred, however, do not provide sufficient
information regarding the parties' citizenship.
amended complaint identifies plaintiff USAV Group LLC as a
“two-member limited liability company, the two members
are Chris Whitley and K.C. Schwarz.” Docket No. 19 at
1, ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that each of its members
“resides” in Colorado. Id., ¶ 4.
However, domicile, not residency or mailing address, is
determinative of citizenship. Whitelock v.
Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514 (10th Cir. 1972)
(“[A]llegations of mere ‘residence' may not
be equated with ‘citizenship' for the purposes of
establishing diversity.”); see also Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48
(1989) (“‘Domicile' is not necessarily
synonymous with ‘residence, ' and one can reside in
one place but be domiciled in another.” (citations
omitted)). Plaintiff has not identified the citizenship of
its members. Cf. Fifth Third Bank v. Flatrock 3,
LLC, 2010 WL 2998305, at *3 (D.N.J. July 21, 2010)
(concluding that an allegation that “upon information
and belief, the members of [an LLC] are citizens of New
York” was insufficient because plaintiff “failed
to identify or trace the citizenship of each individual
member” of the LLC (internal quotation marks
omitted)). The Court is therefore unable to determine
the citizenship of plaintiff and whether the Court has
jurisdiction. See United States ex rel. General Rock
& Sand Corp. v. Chuska Dev. Corp., 55 F.3d 1491,
1495 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The party seeking the exercise
of jurisdiction in his favor must allege in his pleading the
facts essential to show jurisdiction.”) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
plaintiff does not show the citizenship of defendant. The
amended complaint states that, “[o]n information and
belief, ” defendant is a Delaware corporation and
“[i]t is believed” the defendant's principal
place of business is in New York. Docket No. 19 at 2, ¶
5. The Court reads plaintiff's averment of
defendant's citizenship, made on information and/or
belief, to mean that plaintiff does not have affirmative
knowledge of defendant's citizenship. Such unsupported
allegations do not confer subject matter jurisdiction over
this case. See Yates v. Portofino Real Estate Props. Co.,
LLC, No. 08-cv-00324-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2588833, at *3 (D.
Colo. Aug. 17, 2009) (requiring plaintiff to “address
the citizenship of each of [defendant's] members without
resorting merely to their ‘information and belief'
as to the same”); Pinkard Constr. Co., 2009 WL
2338116, at *3 (allegations made on information and belief
“mean that plaintiffs have no affirmative knowledge of
a lack of diversity”).
foregoing reasons, it is
that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 2,
2017, plaintiff USAV Group LLC shall show cause why
this case should not be dismissed due to the Court's lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
 Plaintiff also claims that it is
“incorporated, ” Docket No. 19 at 1, ¶ 2,
but this allegation is almost certainly incorrect.
Compare Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-601(3)(a)
(“The entity name of a corporation shall contain the
term or abbreviation ‘corporation',
‘limited', ‘corp.', ‘inc.',
‘co.', or ‘ltd.'”) with
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-601(3)(c) (“The entity
name of a limited liability company shall contain the term or
abbreviation ‘limited liability company',
‘ltd. liability company', ‘limited liability
co.', ‘ltd. liability co.',
‘limited', ‘l.l.c.', ‘llc', or
‘ltd.'”). The Court will assume that
plaintiff is a limited liability company (“LLC”),
not a corporation.
 This Court has previously noted that,
“[w]hile various state legislatures have decided to
permit the members of LLCs to remain anonymous to the public
at large, Congress has not created an exception to the
requirements of diversity jurisdiction which would allow the
members of LLCs to remain anonymous in federal court.”
U.S. Advisor, LLC v. Berkshire Prop. Advisors, No.
09-cv-00697-PAB-CBS, 2009 WL ...