Opinion ID: 2833601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Principles of Diversity Jurisdiction

Text: “The principal federal statute governing diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, gives federal district courts 6 724 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2013). 7 “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and our review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is plenary.” Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2008). 6 original jurisdiction of all civil actions ‘between . . . citizens of different States’ where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”8 For over two hundred years, the statute has been understood as requiring “complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants,” even though only minimal diversity is constitutionally required.9 This means that, unless there is some other basis for jurisdiction, “no plaintiff [may] be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”10 “Most rules of citizenship are well established. A natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the state where he is domiciled. A corporation is a citizen both of the state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business.”11 But unlike corporations, unincorporated associations such as partnerships “are not considered ‘citizens’ as that term is used in the diversity statute.”12 Instead, “the citizenship of partnerships and other 8 Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332). 9 Id. Although challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, whether diversity exists is determined by the citizenship of the parties at the time the action is filed. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570-71 (2004). 10 Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010). 11 Id. (citations omitted). 12 Swiger, 540 F.3d at 182 (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187-92 (1990)). 7 unincorporated associations is determined by the citizenship of [their] partners or members.”13 The state of organization and the principal place of business of an unincorporated association are legally irrelevant.14 “Accordingly, the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members.”15 For complete diversity to exist, all of the LLC’s members “must be diverse from all parties on the opposing side.”16 13 Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420; see also Emerald Investors Trust v. Gaunt Parsippany Partners, 492 F.3d 192, 200 (3d Cir. 2007). The “one exception” identified by the Supreme Court is “the entity known as a sociedad en comandita, created under the civil law of Puerto Rico, [which is] treated as a citizen of Puerto Rico for purposes of determining federal-court jurisdiction.” Carden, 494 U.S. at 189-90. 14 See Carden, 494 U.S. at 192; Johnson, 724 F.3d at 348. 15 Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420; see also Johnson, 724 F.3d at 348. 16 Swiger, 540 F.3d at 185. Depending on the membership structure of the LLC, this inquiry can become quite complicated. “[A]s with partnerships, where an LLC has, as one of its members, another LLC, ‘the citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be’ to determine the citizenship of the LLC.” Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420 (quoting Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2003)). 8