NOTICE AND ORDER

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Brian Dogie and Chelsea Duhon ("Plaintiffs")1 against Defendant General Motors LLC ("General Motors"). The Complaint asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, diversity of citizenship.2 The Complaint makes the following allegations regarding the citizenship of the parties:

Proper information regarding the citizenship of all parties is necessary to establish the Court's diversity jurisdiction. In the Complaint, citizenship has been adequately alleged as to Plaintiffs and the amount in controversy is met.4 However, citizenship has not been adequately alleged with respect to General Motors.

As set forth above, the Complaint asserts that General Motors is a limited liability company.5 For purposes of diversity, "the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of all of its members." Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, to properly allege the citizenship of a limited liability company, a party must identify each of the members of a limited liability company, and the citizenship of each member in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and (c). The same requirement applies to any member of a limited liability company which is also a limited liability company. See Turner Bros. Crane and Rigging, LLC v. Kingboard Chemical Holding Ltd., 2007 WL 2848154, at *4 (M.D. La. Sept. 24, 2007) ("when partners or members are themselves entities or associations, the citizenship must be traced through however many layers of members or partners there may be, and failure to do [so] can result in dismissal for want of jurisdiction.") (citations omitted).

Furthermore, review of the Complaint reflects that Plaintiffs expressly state a cause of action for violations of Louisiana's Redhibition Law in connection with the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.6 At one point, Plaintiffs also refer to "the Warranty Act," and cite cases discussing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.7 The MMWA provides for federal subject matter jurisdiction over breach of warranty claims brought by consumers (all as defined by the Act), where the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.8 On the face of the Complaint, however, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs are asserting a claim for violations of the MMWA such that the Court has federal question jurisdiction.9

The Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether it may exercise jurisdiction in this matter, specifically whether there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and/or whether there is jurisdiction pursuant to the MMWA.10

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before February 21, 2020, Plaintiffs Brian Dogie and Chelsea Duhon shall file a motion to substitute their Complaint11 with a proposed pleading that is a comprehensive amended Complaint (i.e., that includes all of Plaintiffs' numbered allegations, as revised, supplemented, and/or amended), which adequately alleges the citizenship of all parties to establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, or alternatively, adequately alleges another basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, including but not limited to a claim brought pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq., and which will become the operative Complaint in this matter without reference to any other document in the record.

The case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established.