1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Deep Wilcox Oil & Gas LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Texas Energy Acquisitions LP, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00308-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) filed on January 29, 2018. 

The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and finds that Defendants have not 

sufficiently alleged that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 

Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if subject matter 

jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 

(9th Cir. 2004). The removing party bears the burden of sufficiently alleging subject 

matter jurisdiction as a basis for removal. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 

1195 (9th Cir. 1988). To satisfy this burden under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the removing party 

must demonstrate that either diversity or federal question jurisdiction existed at the time 

of removal. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). A federal 

court is obligated to inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction in each case and dismiss a 

case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1116. 

 Here, Defendants have asserted diversity jurisdiction as the basis for removal. 

(Notice of Removal ¶ 8.) Diversity jurisdiction exists in actions between citizens of 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For the purpose of determining diversity of citizenship, 

limited liability companies (LLCs) and partnerships, including limited partnerships (LPs), 

are citizens of every state of which their owners/members are citizens. Johnson v. 

Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “[a] 

limited partnership is a citizen of each state in which its general and limited partners, 

including general and limited partners who are partners of other partners in [a] multitiered structure, hold citizenship.” Federal Procedure, Lawyer’s Edition § 1:165 

(Thomson Reuters 2009), see also Hooper v. Wolfe, 396 F.3d 744, 748 (6th Cir. 2005). 

 In their Complaint (Doc. 1-3 at 2)—operative at the time of removal—Plaintiffs 

alleged that all of the parties in this action—Plaintiffs and Defendants—are either an 

LLC or an LP. In the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1), Defendants have not identified every 

state of which the owners/members of each party LLC and LP are citizens. For the Court 

to determine if it has diversity jurisdiction in this matter, Defendants must allege the state 

of citizenship of each and every general partner, limited partner, member and owner of 

every party LP and LLC, including Plaintiffs. For multi-tiered entities, this includes 

listing the citizenship of each owner and/or member of any LLC or LP that is an owner 

and/or member of one of the parties. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants shall file an Amended Notice of 

Removal that complies with the requirements identified in this Order by July 31, 2018. 

 Dated this 20th day of July, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge