1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

TROY A. SMOCKS

v.

PARLER LLC, ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-462-SDJ

ORDER

The Court’s jurisdiction over this case remains an open question. Plaintiff Troy 

A. Smocks has failed to comply with the Court’s first order on jurisdictional pleading, 

(Dkt. #7), which required him to allege a basis for federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the 

Court ORDERS Smocks to file a second amended complaint alleging the facts 

required to establish federal jurisdiction.

Smocks alleges that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332 due to diversity in the parties’ citizenships. “To properly allege diversity 

jurisdiction under § 1332, the parties need to allege complete diversity.” MidCap 

Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation 

omitted). Complete diversity requires that “all persons on one side of the controversy 

[must] be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.” Id. (quotation 

omitted). Citizenship of an entity depends on its form. A corporation is “a citizen of 

every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or 

foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A 

limited liability company is a citizen where each of its members is a citizen. E.g.,

Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). These 

differences require different factual allegations to establish citizenship. A court 

Case 4:23-cv-00462-SDJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 47
2

cannot determine whether federal jurisdiction exists without these allegations. See 

MidCap, 929 F.3d at 313.

Smocks has failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship because he has 

failed to properly allege the citizenship of Parler, LLC (“Parler”); NDM Ascendant, 

LLC (“NDM”); and the Rebekah Mercer 2020 Irrevocable Trust (“the Trust”). The 

Court addresses each of the defects in turn.

First, as to Parler, Smocks asserts that it “is a citizen of Nevada, with its 

headquarters and principal place of business [in the] city of Henderson.” (Dkt. #11 at 

2). Parler has been identified as a limited liability company. And in the Court’s first 

order on jurisdictional pleading, Smocks was instructed that, because an LLC’s 

citizenship for diversity purposes is determined exclusively by the State(s) where its 

members are citizens, see MidCap, 929 F.3d at 313–14; see also Harvey, 542 F.3d 

at 1080, facts such as the LLC’s headquarters and principal place of business are

irrelevant to the citizenship inquiry. (Dkt. #7 at 2–3). Inexplicably, however, the only 

substantive change Smocks has made to his pleading regarding Parler is to change 

his allegation of Parler’s citizenship from Delaware to Nevada, premised once again

on the location of Parler’s “headquarters and principal place of business.” Smocks has 

still failed to identify Parler’s members and their respective citizenships, which will 

determine whether Parler is a citizen of Delaware, Nevada, or some other State(s). 

Absent such allegations, the Court cannot know if it has diversity jurisdiction.

Second, as to NDM, Smocks appears to identify it as a limited liability company

holding citizenship in both Nevada and Delaware. (Dkt. #11 at 2–3). To support his 

Case 4:23-cv-00462-SDJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 48
3

claim of Nevada citizenship, Smocks alleges only that NDM has a principal location 

in Henderson, Nevada––a fact that is irrelevant to determining an LLC’s citizenship. 

As to his allegation of NDM’s Delaware citizenship, Smocks identifies only one of its 

members as a citizen of Delaware, ignoring the Court’s previous instruction that a

limited liability company is a citizen where each of its members is a citizen. (Dkt. #7 

at 3 (citing Harvey, 542 F.3d at 1080)). In his amended complaint, Smocks must 

identify each of NDM’s members and their respective citizenships, not just one of 

them.

Third, as to the Trust, Smocks asserts that it is “a Delaware corporate 

[citizen].” (Dkt. #11 at 4). This is yet another instance in which Smocks has ignored 

the Court’s instruction to identify the trustees or their respective citizenships. 

(Dkt. #7 at 4 (citing Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464–65, 100 S.Ct. 1779, 

64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980) (holding that citizenship of a trust is based on each trustee 

who is a real party in interest))). In his amended complaint, Smocks must identify 

the Trust’s trustees who are real parties in interest and their respective citizenships.

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS that, by no later than Monday, July 

10, 2023, Smocks must file a second amended complaint that alleges facts sufficient 

to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. If Smocks once again fails to properly allege facts 

establishing this Court’s jurisdiction, the case may be dismissed.

Case 4:23-cv-00462-SDJ Document 12 Filed 06/28/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 49