Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Dougherty & Holloway, LLC, 19-cv-01017-RM-STV. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20190805899 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon consideration of the operative complaint (ECF No. 18) alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), which requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Here, to show diversity, Plaintiff alleges the following: 1. ALPS is an insurance company and corporation organized under the laws of the State of Montana with its principal place of business in the Sta
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon consideration of the operative complaint (ECF No. 18) alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Here, to show diversity, Plaintiff alleges the following:

1. ALPS is an insurance company and corporation organized under the laws of the State of Montana with its principal place of business in the State of Montana. ... 2. Dougherty & Holloway is a Missouri Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business located in Kansas City, Missouri. 3. Hernandez is an attorney with a license to practice law in the State of Colorado and a resident and citizen of the State of Colorado.

(First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 1-3.)1 Such allegations, however, are insufficient to show diversity jurisdiction exists.

Specifically, Defendant Dougherty & Holloway, LLC is a limited liability company and "an LLC, as an unincorporated association, takes the citizenship of all its members." Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege the identity and citizenship of Defendant Dougherty & Holloway, LLC's members. As such, diversity jurisdiction has not been shown.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that on or before Friday, August 9, 2019, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed due to this Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

FootNotes


1. The allegations in Plaintiff's original complaint regarding jurisdiction are the same. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1-3.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer