1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SAVATREE, LLC, 

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-02052-K 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHAWNEE MISSION TREE SERVICE,

INC. d/b/a ARBOR MASTERS, GETTH

NELSON, FRANCISCO ANDRADE,

CODY CAUDILL, and LUIS CASTRO, 

Defendants.

ORDER

Federal courts are vested with subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil actions 

“arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” or where the 

case in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, or 

between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1332(a)(1)-(2). A federal court has no power to adjudicate claims where subject-matter 

jurisdiction does not exist and, consequently, must dismiss the action. Stockman v. Fed. 

Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The 

Court has an obligation to examine its subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. 

See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230–31 (1990); see also Ruhrgas AG v. 

Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be 

Case 3:22-cv-02052-K Document 12 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 69
2

policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level.”). Subject-matter 

jurisdiction may not be waived. See Ruhrgas AG, 526 U.S. at 583.

SavATree, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint in this Court on September 15, 

2022, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. No. 1 ¶ 26. 

The amount in controversy does not appear to be in question. However, the diversity 

of the parties’ citizenship is unclear. The parties’ citizenship must be completely diverse 

in that one of the plaintiffs cannot share the same state citizenship as one of the 

defendants. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003). 

“When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship must be ‘distinctly and 

affirmatively alleged.’” Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 

1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988).

First, in discussing individual Defendants, Plaintiff states: 

22. Nelson is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides at 

1712 Sheffield Place, Fort Worth, Texas 76112 . . . . 

23. Andrade is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides

at 414 Stonecreek Drive Arlington, Texas 76014 . . . . 

24. Caudill is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides

at 1980 Winningkoff Road, Allen, Texas 75002-8508 . . . . 

25. Castro is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides at 

1819 Harlandale Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75216 . . . . 

Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 22-25 (emphasis added). Plaintiff improperly equates residence with 

citizenship. “An allegation of residency, however, does not satisfy the requirement of 

an allegation of citizenship.” Neely v. Bankers Tr. Co. of Tex., 757 F.2d 621, 634 n.18 

Case 3:22-cv-02052-K Document 12 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 70
3

(5th Cir. 1985) (“We admonish counsel generally to fulfill strictly their obligation to 

allege diversity by alleging citizenship, not residence.”). Citizenship and residence are 

not synonymous terms. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648, 24 L.Ed. 1057 (1878). 

“In determining diversity jurisdiction, the state where someone establishes domicile 

serves a dual function as his state of citizenship . . . . Domicile requires the 

demonstration of two factors: residence and the intention to remain.” Hollinger v. Home

State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted). Mere allegations of residential addresses for Defendants Nelson, 

Andrade, Caudill, and Castro are not sufficient for establishing diversity jurisdiction. 

Further, the citizenship of a limited liability company (“LLC”) is determined by 

the citizenship of its members. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195 

(1990) (diversity jurisdiction is determined by the citizenship of “all the members” of 

the unincorporated entity or limited partnership); Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 

F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (5th Cir. 2008) (the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the 

citizenship of all its members). Plaintiff states that it is “a Delaware limited liability 

company, which is authorized to conduct business within the State of Texas, and has 

locations in Dallas, Fort Worth, Anna, and Houston, Texas. [Plaintiff’s] principal place 

of business is Bedford Hills, New York. [Plaintiff] has three individuals as its members; 

they are residents of New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.” Doc. No. 1 ¶ 20

(emphasis added). However, the allegations of an LLC’s citizenship must include the 

identity of each member as well as each member’s citizenship. Settlement Funding, L.L.C. 

Case 3:22-cv-02052-K Document 12 Filed 10/06/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 71
4

v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017); Hise Real Estate Invs., LP 

v. Great Lakes Ins. SE, 2021 WL 217264, at *3 (E.D. Jan. 21, 2021). Moreover, if any 

member of the LLC is itself an unincorporated association such as a partnership or 

LLC, the Court must “know the citizenship of each ‘sub-member’ as well.” See V & M 

Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010). Here, Plaintiff fails to 

specifically identify each of its members. Additionally, because residency does not 

equate to citizenship, the citizenship of each member is also unclear. 

Federal courts “must presume that a suit lies outside [their] limited jurisdiction,” 

and the party seeking the federal forum bears the burden of establishing federal 

jurisdiction. See Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Stafford v. Mobil Oil 

Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff has not met this burden. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to amend its Complaint to address 

the issues outlined above by October 21, 2022. Each party’s Certificate of Interested 

Persons / Disclosure Statement must properly reflect the citizenship of all parties, 

including the members of any relevant LLC. Failure to properly comply with this Order 

will result in a dismissal of this case without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Signed October 6th, 2022. 

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02052-K Document 12 Filed 10/06/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 72