United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. BRIMMER, JUDGE
Court takes up this matter sua sponte on the Notice
of Removal [Docket No. 1] filed by defendant Travelers
Property Casualty Company of America. Defendant states that
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Docket No. 1 at 2,
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). Defendant invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as the
basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Docket No.
1 at 2, ¶ 3. 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 plaintiff's citizenship.
notice of removal identifies plaintiff Restoration
Enterprise, LLC as a “limited liability company
organized under the law of Colorado with its principal place
of business located in Colorado.” Docket No. 1 at 2,
¶ 4. This information is not relevant to plaintiff's
citizenship. While, for diversity purposes, “a
corporation shall be 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, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990),
these considerations are irrelevant to the determination of
the citizenship of an LLC. See Siloam Springs Hotel,
L.L.C. 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.”).
notice of removal further states that “Plaintiff's
sole member is a resident and citizen of Colorado” and
“Plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado.” Docket No.
1 at 2, ¶ 4. As support for this assertion, defendant
provides an email from plaintiff's counsel stating that
plaintiff is a “single-member LLC, the sole member of
which is an individual resident of Colorado.” Docket
No. 1-11. This statement is insufficient for two reasons.
First, domicile, not residency, 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)).
Second, defendant fails to identify the member of plaintiff
and the Court is, therefore, unable to independently
determine whether it has jurisdiction. 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)).
foregoing reasons, it is
that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 10,
2018, defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company
of America shall show cause why this case should not be
dismissed due to the Court's lack of subject matter
 A corporation's “principal
place of business” is “the place where a
corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation's activities.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).
 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.