5th LLC v. Kemah Marine et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
5TH LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEMAH MARINE, a division of
Kemah Capital; and
CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-364-D
ORDER
Upon examination of the Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1], the Court finds
insufficient factual allegations to establish the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), as asserted by Defendant Clear Spring Property and Casualty
Company (“Clear Spring”).1 Further, although the Court ultimately reserves any ruling on
the issue, it is unclear from the Notice how, or why, this case falls within the jurisdictional
parameters of 28 U.S.C. § 1333.
First, as it relates to Plaintiff’s citizenship, Clear Spring alleges only that “Plaintiff
is alleged to be an Oklahoma limited liability company.” Notice of Removal, ¶ 7. Although
Plaintiff does allege in its state-court petition [Doc. No. 1-2] that it is an Oklahoma limited
liability company, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the
1 The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction
exists” and may raise the issue sua sponte at any time. 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds &
Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).
Case 5:25-cv-00364-D Document 4 Filed 04/02/25 Page 1 of 3

2
citizenship of each of its members. Spring Creek Expl. & Prod. Co., LLC v. Hess Bakken
Inv., II, LLC, 887 F.3d 1003, 1014 (10th Cir. 2018). Clear Spring’s Notice fails to
specifically identify Plaintiff’s members and the citizenships of those members.
Second, Clear Spring also alleges that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction,
exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise
entitled.” Upon review of the Notice, along with Plaintiff’s state-court petition, it is not
immediately clear how a case involving state-law claims for breach of contract and bad
faith (which stem from “seawater ingress into the vessel, while the vessel was docked”),
without more, falls within § 1333’s admiralty jurisdiction. See U.S. Aviation Underwriters,
Inc. v. Pilatus Bus. Aircraft, Ltd., 582 F.3d 1131, 1140 (10th Cir. 2009) (“The resulting test
[to determine whether admiralty jurisdiction governs the suit] is, unsurprisingly, nuanced:
admiralty jurisdiction should cover only activities so closely related to traditional maritime
activities that the reasons for applying special admiralty rules should predominate.” (citing
Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 539-40 (1995)).
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Clear Spring to file an amended notice of
removal, within 14 days of this Order, which supplies the missing jurisdictional
information regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship. If any member of Plaintiff is itself a business
entity, then further jurisdictional information pertaining to that member is required. If any
member is an individual, then jurisdictional information regarding the individual’s state of
Case 5:25-cv-00364-D Document 4 Filed 04/02/25 Page 2 of 3

3
citizenship, rather than state of residency, is required. Failure to comply may result in the
remand of this action to state court.2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2025.
2 If the amended notice of removal includes 	sufficient allegations 	establishing diversity
jurisdiction, the question of whether admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 is proper would,
presumably, be moot. However, the Court reserves any ruling on that issue until reviewing the
amended notice of removal.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00364-D Document 4 Filed 04/02/25 Page 3 of 3