United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30130

____________

Richard’s Clearview LLC, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:22-CV-2326

______________________________

Before Graves, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Richard’s Clearview LLC sued Starr Surplus Lines Insurance 

Company in Louisiana state court over an insurance dispute. Starr removed 

the case to federal court, alleging diversity of citizenship. After the district 

court dismissed the case on other grounds, Clearview presented evidence of 

the lack of diversity of citizenship between the parties and accordingly filed a 

motion for vacatur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). The 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 17, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30130 Document: 00516933457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2023
No. 23-30130

2

district court granted the motion, denied Starr’s request for jurisdictional 

discovery, and remanded the case to state court. Starr appealed the 

judgment. We now affirm for the reasons given by the district court in its 

opinion.

A judgment issued in a diversity case is a “paradigmatic” void 

judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) if it is later discovered that the parties are in 

fact not diverse. See Mitchell Law Firm, L.P. v. Bessie Jeanne Revocable Trust, 

8 F.4th 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2021). And that is exactly the case here.

Starr is a corporation incorporated in Texas with its principal place of 

business in New York.1 This makes it a citizen of Texas and New York for 

diversity purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Clearview is a limited liability 

company, and two of its members turn out to be Texas citizens. A limited 

liability company takes the citizenship of all its members, see MidCap Media 

Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019), so 

Clearview is a citizen of Texas for diversity purposes. Accordingly, there is 

no diversity jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Once that 

became clear, the district court correctly held that it had a “total want of 

jurisdiction,” Richard’s Clearview LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 22-

CV-2326, 2023 WL 1778943 at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2023) (quoting Callon 

Petrol. Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 351 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2003)), and vacated 

its prior order accordingly.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Starr 

jurisdictional discovery. We will disturb a discovery decision “only if it is 

_____________________

1 On appeal, Starr states multiple times that it is incorporated in New York and has 

its principal place of business in Texas. This is at odds with what it alleges in the initial 

notice of removal and what the district court states in its opinion. The discrepancy is 

ultimately immaterial, because the corporation is a citizen of both for diversity purposes. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

Case: 23-30130 Document: 00516933457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2023
No. 23-30130

3

arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.” Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media, Inc., 415 

F.3d 419, 428 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Mayo v. Tri-Bell Inus., Inc., 787 F.2d 

1007, 1012 (5th Cir. 1986)). The district court’s refusal to let Starr conduct 

discovery on Clearview’s members’ citizenship was neither. Having

considered evidence of the Texas members’ residence and activities, the 

district court concluded both were Texas citizens. Given this evidence, it 

was reasonable to determine, as the district court did, that further discovery 

was unnecessary.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, 

a court “cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). When a want of jurisdiction becomes apparent, 

the court must dismiss the cause. See id. And when it becomes apparent 

following a judgment that the rendering court lacked jurisdiction to issue it, 

that judgment is void. See Mitchell, 8 F.4th at 420. The district court issued 

a void judgment. It was appropriate to vacate that judgment. Accordingly, 

we affirm.

Case: 23-30130 Document: 00516933457 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/17/2023