LAUREL GARDENS, LLC v. MJL ENTERPRISES, LLC, No. 1:2015cv05549 - Document 15 (D.N.J. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 1/7/2016. (TH, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LAUREL GARDENS, LLC v. MJL ENTERPRISES, LLC Doc. 15 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT D ISTRICT OF N EW JERSEY LAU REL GARD EN S, LLC, : : : : : : : : : Pla in tiff, v. MJ L EN TERPRISES, LLC, D e fe n d an ts . H o n . Jo s e p h H . Ro d rigu e z Civil N o . 15-554 9 Op in io n These m atters com e before the Court on Plaintiff Laurel Gardens, LLC’s Motion To Rem and and on Motion of Defendant MJ L Enterprises, LLC to Quash Service of the Com plaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), or in the alternative to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 140 4(a). The Court has considered the written subm issions of the parties, without oral argum ent. For the reason s that follow the Motions will be den ied without prejudice and dism issed without prejudice. I. Backgro u n d Plaintiff engaged the services of Defen dant for the purpose of securing opportunities to provide landscape services to governm ental entities in New J ersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Defendant was form ed and has its principal place of business in Virginia. Plaintiff is registered and has its prin cipal place of business in Pennsylvania. MJ L was awarded a prim e contract by the New J ersey Departm ent of Transportation under its “Good Neighbor Program ” on August 13, 20 14. Com pl.¶11. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Com plaint avers that the parties entered into an agreem ent whereby Laurel Gardens would serve as a subcontractor under the New J ersey Landscaping contract. Id. at ¶6. Laurel Gardens alleges that the contract was term inated by MJ L on Novem ber 14, 20 14. Id. at ¶33. As series of lawsuits ensued. On March 9, 20 15, MJ L filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking declaratory relief and dam ages from Plaintiff’s alleged failure to perform under the contract. Id. at ¶¶37-38. Then, Plaintiff filed suit in the New J ersey Superior Court, Cam den Vicinage, on May 16, 20 15. MJ L rem oved the New J ersey action to this Court on diversity of citizenship grounds on J uly 15, 20 15. In the m eantim e, Laurel Gardens filed a m otion to dism iss the Virginia com plaint; the m otion was denied on October 23, 20 15 and the Virginia action rem ains active. See MJ L Enterprises, LLC v. Laurel Gardens, LLC, et al., Civ. No 2:15-CV-10 0 (E.D.Va. Oct. 23, 20 15). Plaintiff Laurel Gardens argues that this m atter m ust be rem anded in light of MJ L’s failure to properly plead the citizenship of every m em ber of its LLC. Specifically, Laurel Gardens claim s that because MJ L has n ot properly plead diversity of citizenship, the Court is without jurisdiction and the m atter m ust be rem anded to the New J ersey Superior Court. Defendant MJ L Enterprises argues that Laurel Garden’s failed to properly serve the Com plaint in violation of both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) and New J ersey Civil Practice Rule 4:4-5. Specifically, Laurel Gardens’ process server m erely hand delivered the sum m ons and com plaint to an alleged unauthorized agent at MJ L’s place of business. In the alternative, MJ L claim s that the “first filed rule,” as articulated by 2 the Third Circuit in E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 969, 971 (3d Cir. 198 8 ), requires the m atter to be transferred to the court in which the dispute was first filed; in this case, the Eastern District of Virginia. Before this Court can entertain any of the parties’ m otions, it m ust determ ine whether jurisdiction lays. II. Stan d ard o f Re vie w The statute governing jurisdiction in this m atter is 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which gives federal district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions ‘between ... citizen s of different States' where the am ount in controversy exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 .” Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 8 1, 8 9, 126 S.Ct. 60 6, 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (20 0 5). For diversity jurisdiction to lay, “no plaintiff [m ay] be a citizen of the sam e state as any defendant.” Zam belli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 20 10 ). Here, both parties are lim ited liability com panies. Partnerships “are not considered ‘citizens' as that term is used in the diversity statute.” Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 80 0 F.3d 99, 10 5 (3d Cir. 20 15). “[T]he citizenship of partnerships an d other unincorporated associations is determ in ed by the citizenship of [their] partners or m em bers.” Zam belli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 20 10 ). “The state of organization and the principal place of business of partnership are irrelevant. Accordingly, the citizenship of an LLC is determ ined by the citizenship of its m em bers. For there to be com plete diversity, all of the LLC's m em bers m ust be diverse from all parties on the opposin g side.” Lin coln Ben. Life Co., 80 0 at 10 5 (3d Cir. 20 15) (quoting Zam belli, 592 F.3d at 419) (internal quotations om itted). 3 III. An alys is Laurel Gardens challenges MJ L’s invocation of diversity jurisdiction as conclusory because MJ L fails to allege the citizenship of each m em ber of MJ L in the Notice of Rem oval in order to plead com plete diversity. In this regard, Laurel Gardens’ challenge is facial. “Norm ally, ‘[i]n reviewing a facial attack, the court m ust only consider the allegations of the com plaint and docum ents referen ced therein and attached thereto, in the light m ost favorable to the plaintiff.’ ” Id. (quoting Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 20 0 0 ). However, the Third Circuit recently perm itted a party to am end a com plaint, in the context of a facial attack on an LLC’s pleading of citizenship, where a sufficient statem ent of jurisdiction was set forth in the opposition brief. Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 80 0 F.3d at 110 (stating that although affidavits and briefs are norm ally not considered on a facial attack to jurisdiction, the court would consider statem ents therein and perm itted am endm ent on appeal.) In Lincoln Ben. Life Co., the Court noted the difficulty of identifying all of the m em bers of a lim ited liability com pany prior to filing. The Court weighed the benefits of a rule that requires precise pleading of m em bers’ citizenship in an LLC and found that the requirem ent of listing each m em ber’s citizenship was too onerous at the pleading stage and would serve only to “[d]epriv[e] a party of a federal forum sim ply because it cannot tim ely identify all of the m em bers of an unincorporated association[.].Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 8 0 0 F.3d at 10 8 . The Court found that this would am ount to an “[ir]rational screening m echanism .” Id., T10 8 -10 9. As a result, the Court directed the Plaintiff to am end the Com plaint on rem and. 4 Here, MJ L states in its opposition brief that MJ L Enterprises, LLC and its only m em ber are residents of the Com m onwealth of Virginia. See Def. Opp. Br., p. 2, n.1. In addition, the brief sets forth facts related to the citizenship of Laurel Gardens, prem ised upon the reverse inference that no m em ber of Laurel Gardens is likely a citizen of Virgin ia. This type of “negative allegation” is perm issible and encouraged. Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 80 0 F.3d at 10 7. Although the Notice of Rem oval fails to state the citizen ship of MJ L’s lone m em ber, the Court will exercise its discretion and perm it MJ L to am end its Notice of Rem oval to include a statem ent of the citizen ship of its m em ber(s) consistent with the Third Circuit’s holding in Lin coln Ben. Life Co., 8 0 0 F.3d 99. As a result, the Court will grant MJ L leave to file an am ended notice of rem oval properly pleading the citizenship of every party within twenty (20 ) days of the date of this Opin ion an d accom panying Order. Laurel Gardens’ Motion to rem and is denied without prejudice, with the right to renew if MJ L’s deficiency is not corrected within that tim e. MJ L’s Motion to Quash and/ or To Transfer is dism issed without prejudice with the right to renew upon satisfaction of the jurisdictional pleadin g requirem ents. An appropriate Order accom panies this Opinion. Dated: J anuary 7, 20 16 s/ J oseph H. Rodriguez Hon. J oseph H. Rodriguez, UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
