Intrepid Potash-New Mexico LLC v. Coterra Energy Inc., No. 1:2022cv00408 - Document 8 (D.N.M. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. Plaintiff is granted leave until no later than July 14, 2022, to amend its Complaint to adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction. (am)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO INTREPID POTASH-NEW MEXICO LLC, Plaintiff, v. No. 22-cv-0408 SMV/JFR COTERRA ENERGY INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on its review of the Complaint [Doc. 1], filed on May 31, 2022. The Court has a duty to determine sua sponte whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988). The Court, having considered the Complaint, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, concludes that the Complaint fails to allege the necessary facts of citizenship in order to sustain diversity jurisdiction. Specifically, the Complaint does not allege the citizenship of each and every one Plaintiff’s members. Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than July 14, 2022, if the necessary jurisdictional allegations can be made in compliance with the dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. BACKGROUND On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Complaint, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. 1] at 3–4. Plaintiff alleges that it is a citizen of New Mexico because it was “incorporated” there and maintains its principal place of business there. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a citizen of Texas for the same reasons. Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims more than $75,000 in damages. Id. at 3. Plaintiff makes no allegation about the citizenship of its members. See [Doc. 1]. LEGAL STANDARD A plaintiff is required to assert the basis of subject matter jurisdiction in its complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Additionally, the district court must be satisfied that, indeed, it has subject matter jurisdiction. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269, 1270–71 (10th Cir. 1998). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and thus may be raised by the parties or sua sponte at any time. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). The federal statute providing for the removal of cases from state to federal court was intended to restrict rather than enlarge removal rights. Greenshields v. Warren Petrol. Corp., 248 F.2d 61, 65 (10th Cir. 1957). Federal courts, therefore, are to strictly construe the removal statutes and to resolve all doubts against removal. Fajen v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982). The removing party bears the burden of establishing the requirements for federal jurisdiction. Full Life Hospice, LLC v. Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1016 (10th Cir. 2013). DISCUSSION District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Jurisdiction under § 1332 requires diversity of citizenship. The party asserting jurisdiction must plead citizenship distinctly and affirmatively; allegations of residence are not enough. Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015). Domicile, the equivalent of state citizenship, requires more 2 than mere residence; domicile exists only when residence is coupled with an intention to remain in the state indefinitely. Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). Determining the citizenship of a limited liability company is different from determining the citizenship of a corporation under § 1332. A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and in which it maintains its principal place of business. See § 1332(c). Limited liability companies, however, are treated as partnerships for citizenship purposes and are therefore citizens of each and every state in which any member is a citizen. Siloam Springs Hotel, 781 F.3d at 1234. Here, the facts set forth in the Complaint do not sufficiently establish Plaintiff’s citizenship because they do not allege the citizenship of each and every one of its members. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff must amend its Complaint to properly allege diversity of citizenship, if such allegations can be made in compliance with the dictates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than July 14, 2022. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such an amended complaint is not filed by July 14, 2022, the Court may dismiss this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________ STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge 3

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.