United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. BRIMMER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court takes up this matter sua sponte on
plaintiff's Complaint and Jury Demand [Docket No. 1].
Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 3, ¶ 3.
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. See
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, despite much time
and expense having been dedicated to the case, a lack of
jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed. See U.S. Fire
Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr. Co., No.
09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July
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 asserts that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Pursuant
to that section, “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “For
purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, an
individual's state citizenship is equivalent to
domicile.” Smith v. Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254,
1259 (10th Cir. 2006). “To establish domicile in a
particular state, a person must be physically present in the
state and intend to remain there.” Id. at
1260. The facts presently alleged are insufficient to
establish the parties' citizenship.
complaint alleges that plaintiff “is a Colorado
resident, living in Douglas County, Colorado.” Docket
No. 1 at 2, ¶ 1. However, residency is not synonymous
with domicile, see 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)),
and only the latter is determinative of a party's
citizenship. See 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 Dumas v. Warner Literary
Grp., LLC, No. 16-cv-00518-RM-NYW, 2016 WL 10879185, at
*2 (D. Colo. Apr. 29, 2016) (stating that courts consider a
number of factors in determining a party's citizenship,
including “voter registration and voting practices; . .
. location of brokerage and bank accounts; membership in
unions, fraternal organizations, churches, clubs, and other
associations; . . . [and] payment of taxes.”).
the complaint alleges that defendant “is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Tulsa, Oklahoma.” Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶
2. But the citizenship of a limited liability company is
determined not by its state of organization or principal
place of business, but 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.”). Accordingly,
whether defendant is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Oklahoma is irrelevant to the determination
of defendant's citizenship.
the allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court
to determine the citizenship of the parties 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.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)), it is
that, on or before November 19, 2019,
plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be
dismissed due to the ...