United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
STEPHANIE M. BOLTON-SKOGEN, Plaintiff,
SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC and ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. and QUARTZ HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS CORPORATION, Involuntary Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE
civil action, plaintiff Stephanie M. Bolton-Skogen asserts
negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty claims
against defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC and its unknown
insurance company arising out an incident involving a
SharkNinja product that occurred on November 27, 2016,
resulting in personal injuries. (Compl. (dkt. #1-2).)
Invoking this court's diversity jurisdiction, defendant
removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (Not. of Removal (dkt. #1).)
Because the allegations in the notice of removal and
complaint are insufficient to determine whether diversity
jurisdiction actually exists, defendant will be given an
opportunity to file an amended notice of removal containing
the necessary allegations.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”
Int'l Union of Operating Eng'r, Local
150, AFL-CIO v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted). Unless a complaint alleges complete
diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in
controversy exceeding $75, 000, or raises a federal question,
the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Smart v. Local 702 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers,
562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009). Because jurisdiction is
limited, federal courts “have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even
when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). Further, the party
seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing that jurisdiction is present. Smart,
562 F.3d at 802-03.
defendant contends in its notice of removal that diversity
jurisdiction exists because (1) the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000 and (2) the parties are diverse. (Not. of
Removal (dkt. #1) ¶ 5.) For the latter to be true,
however, there must be complete diversity, meaning plaintiff
cannot be a citizen of the same state as any
defendant. Smart, 562 F.3d at 803. Defendant's
allegations as to its own citizenship prevent this court from
determining if this is so.
citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its
members, ” yet defendant has not alleged sufficient
information to determine whether complete diversity exists
here. Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474
F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the notice of removal
lacks any allegations regarding the names or the
citizenship of any of defendant SharkNinja Operating
LLC's members. Instead, defendant alleges it is “a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business
located in Needham, Massachusetts.” (Not. of Removal
(dkt. #1) ¶ 12.) As an LLC, however, defendant is
not a corporation. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit
instructs that the place of “corporation” and
principal place of business is wholly irrelevant in deciding
the citizenship of a limited liability company. Hukic v.
Aurora Loan Serv., 588 F.3d 420, 429 (7th Cir.
dismissing this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, defendant will be given leave to file within 21
days an amended notice of removal that establishes subject
matter jurisdiction by alleging the names and citizenship of
each member of its LLC.
Defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC shall have until January
8, 2020, to file and serve an amended notice of removal
containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish
complete diversity of citizenship for purposes of determining
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Failure to amend timely shall result in prompt dismissal of
this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 In alleging the LLC's citizenship,
plaintiff should be aware that if any members of the LLC are
themselves a limited liability company, partnership, or other
similar entity, then the individual citizenship of each of
those members and partners must also be alleged as well.
See Meyerson v. ...