Opinion ID: 6559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Diversity Jurisdiction and Limited Partnerships After Carden

Text: 20 The clear law after the Supreme Court's decision in Carden v. Arkoma Associates 16 is that the citizenship of all partners, limited as well as general, controls the citizenship of the limited partnership itself. 17 Bankston suggests that we distinguish Carden, because this case is in federal court on removal, rather than having been originally filed in federal court. We find Carden controlling. We have resisted attempts to carve exceptions from Carden, even though we acknowledged that the decision effectively closes the doors of the federal courts to many lawsuits among partners or by partners against a partnership. 18 21 Under Carden, Kona Hills is a citizen of, at a minimum, Texas and California. Because Bankston is a citizen of Texas, and because Kona Hills is an indispensable party defendant for Bankston's derivative claims, there is no complete diversity of citizenship. 19 Accordingly, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims Bankston asserted. We must, therefore, reverse the district court's judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to remand this case to the state court from which it was removed. 20