MEMORANDUM ORDER

MARK L. HORNSBY, Magistrate Judge.

Red River Oil Co., LLC ("Plaintiff") filed this suit in federal court for damages related to wrongful conversion of diesel fuel. The complaint invoked this court's diversity jurisdiction, which puts the burden on the Plaintiff to show complete diversity of citizenship of the parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000.

The court issued an order (Doc. 5) that directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and clarify the allegations regarding the citizenship of the parties. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) that alleges 100% of the membership interest of Plaintiff (an LLC) is owned by another LLC, the sole members of which are "Kenny Grounds, a resident of Arkansas, and Derick Maynard, a resident of Texas."

It is domicile rather than mere residency that decides citizenship for diversity purposes, and "[i]t is well established that an allegation of residency does not satisfy the requirement of an allegation of citizenship." Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley, 313 F.3d 305, 310 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2002), quoting Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1984). A person may reside in multiple states simultaneously, but "[a]n individual who resides in more than one State is regarded, for purposes of federal subject-matter (diversity) jurisdiction, as a citizen of but one State." Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 126 S.Ct. 941, 951 (2006). That is the state in which the person is domiciled. Id.; Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc., 334 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

Rather than require another amendment to address this issue, the court will assume that the allegations of residency with respect to the two members were intended to allege that those are the states in which the individuals are domiciled. If that assumption is incorrect, Plaintiff must say so in the case management report that the court will direct the parties to file after answers are filed.

The amended complaint alleges that defendant SWEPCO is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. Based on that clarification, and the assumption made above, the court makes a preliminary finding that there is a basis for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1332. This finding is subject to review sua sponte or if challenged later in the proceedings.