Schultz v. Roberts Gordon et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Scott Howard Schultz,
Plaintiff,
v.
Roberts-Gordon LLC and Weather-Rite LLC,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-2412 (JRT/SGE)
REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Roberts-Gordon LLC’s Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. 5.) Plaintiff Scott Howard Schultz filed the Complaint in this matter on June
10, 2025. (Dkt. 1.) Defendant Roberts-Gordon LLC filed the instant motion on August 7,
2025, and the matter was referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge John
R. Tunheim on August 22, 2025, for report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. (Dkts. 5, 10.)
This Court issued a briefing order on August 29, 2025, providing Mr. Schultz until
September 11, 2025, to file any responsive memorandum and accompanying affidavits and
exhibits. (Dkt. 11.) The Court’s briefing order informed Mr. Schultz that if he did not file
a response, “the Court will take the motion under advisement without oral argument.” (Id.)
Mr. Schultz requested an extension until October 3, 2025, to file a response, which the
Court granted. (Dkts. 12 & 13.) The Court did not receive a response from Mr. Schultz.
For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that Defendant Roberts-Gordon LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss be granted.
CASE 0:25-cv-02412-JRT-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 6

2
BACKGROUND
Mr. Schultz filed a Complaint using a court form that alleges asbestos exposure
between 2000 and 2014 at a facility operated by defendant Weather-Rite LLC. (Dkt. 1.)
On this form, Mr. Schultz alleges that this court has jurisdiction based upon a federal
question “involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties” under 28
U.S.C. § 1331. (Id. at 3.) The Complaint does not set forth any basis for the exercise of
federal question jurisdiction. (Id.) Additionally, the Complaint makes no allegations
regarding citizenship of the parties or the amount of damages that Mr. Schultz seeks to
recover. What the Complaint does state is that Mr. Schultz is a citizen of Minnesota, he
was exposed to asbestos in Minnesota, and Defendant Weather-Rite LLC operates in
Minnesota. (Id. at 1.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In order for a plaintiff to maintain
a lawsuit in federal court, he must establish subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Cath. Mut.
Relief Soc’y of Am. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 334 F. Supp. 3d 986, 992 (D. Minn. 2019)
(citing Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992)). Subject matter
jurisdiction can arise under either federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or
federal diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal question jurisdiction exists when an action “arises under” federal law—that
is, when the complaint alleges a violation of a federal law or a constitutional protection. Id.
§ 1331; Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P’ship v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC, 843 F.3d
325, 329 (8th Cir. 2016). Separately, courts can exercise diversity jurisdiction where a
CASE 0:25-cv-02412-JRT-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 6

3
plaintiff pleads “complete diversity” between all plaintiffs and all defendants—that is
where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds
citizenship.” Hubbard v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 799 F.3d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015). A
party asserting subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship must establish,
with specificity in the pleadings, the citizenship of the parties. Barclay Square Props. v.
Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Minneapolis, 893 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir. 1990)
(citation omitted); Blakemore v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir. 1986);
Ahmed v. GCA Prod. Servs., Inc., 249 F.R.D. 322, 324 (D. Minn. 2008) (citing In re Bus.
Men’s Assurance Co., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)). They also must
allege enough for the Court to find the jurisdictional amount alleged complies with
§ 1332(a)(1). OnePoint Sols., LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 348 (8th Cir. 2007). “[I]f the
asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction is appropriate.” Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir.
2005) (cleaned up).
To withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), litigants must
properly plead their claims under Rule 8 and contain a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009);
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Although the federal pleading standard
does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it requires “more than an unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint “must
contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, 746 F.3d 391, 397 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. 550 U.S.
CASE 0:25-cv-02412-JRT-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 10/21/25 Page 3 of 6

4
at 547). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
ANALYSIS
In its Motion to Dismiss, Roberts-Gordon LLC argues that Mr. Schultz’s Complaint
(1) fails to adequately establish that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter and (2) fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court will address these arguments
in turn.
First, the Court agrees that Mr. Schultz’s Complaint fails to establish diversity
jurisdiction. “[F]or purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited-liability company (‘LLC’)
takes the citizenship of all of its members and ‘sub-members’ and ‘sub-sub-members.’”
Key Enters., LLC v. Morgan, Case no. 12-cv-2628 (PJS/JSM), 2013 WL 353911, at *1 (D.
Minn. Jan. 29, 2013); accord Great River Ent., LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 81 F.4th 1261,
1263 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting GMAC Com. Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 357
F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004)). Merely alleging where an LLC is located or headquartered
is insufficient. E.g., Grover-Tsimi v. Am. Laser Centers, LLC, 2010 WL 550973, at *1 (D.
Minn. 2010). A court must consider the citizenship of each general and limited partner
when “determining whether complete diversity of citizenship exists.” Barclay Square
Props., 893 F.2d at 969 (citing Stouffer Corp. v. Breckenridge, 859 F.2d 75, 76 (8th Cir.
1988)). Thus, to plead the citizenship of an LLC, Mr. Schultz must plead the citizenship of
each member and sub-member, if any. Fifth Third Mort. Co. v. Lamey, Case no. 12-cv-
CASE 0:25-cv-02412-JRT-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 10/21/25 Page 4 of 6

5
2923 (JNE/TNL), 2012 WL 5936055, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 27, 2012) (citing Delay v.
Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009)).
Because Mr. Schultz seeks to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, it must
identify the citizenship of both Roberts-Gordon LLC as well as all of its members. The
Complaint fails to do so. (See Dkt. 1.) Roberts-Gordon LLC’s mailing address does not
establish Roberts-Gordon LLC’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, and the
Complaint fails to identify any of Roberts-Gordon LLC’s members or sub-members.
Second, the Court finds that Mr. Schultz’s Complaint fails to make any clear
allegations against Roberts-Gordon LLC as it fails to allege that Roberts-Gordon LLC
acted in any way whatsoever, let alone in a way that violated a federal law. In sum, it
contains no explanation or factual foundation for any claims against Roberts-Gordon LLC.
Generally, courts give parties an opportunity to amend deficient pleadings. See 28
U.S.C. § 1653 (“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms in the
trial or appellate courts.”); see also Nuevos Destinos, LLC v. Peck, 999 F.3d 641, 646 (8th
Cir. 2021). But Mr. Schultz’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Roberts-Gordon LLC
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and fails to meet the minimal pleading standard of Rule 8. Thus,
allowing Mr. Schultz to amend his complaint to address jurisdictional defects would not
cure the Complaint’s failure to state a claim against Roberts-Gordon. Accordingly, this
Court recommends that the Complaint be dismissed as to any claims against Defendant
Roberts-Gordon LLC.
CASE 0:25-cv-02412-JRT-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 10/21/25 Page 5 of 6

6
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court
determines that Mr. Schultz’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Roberts-Gordon LLC
for which relief can be granted. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the
claims against Roberts-Gordon LLC be DISMISSED.
Dated: October 21, 2025
s/ Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All
objections and responses must comply with the word limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).
Under Advisement Date: This Report and Recommendation will be considered under
advisement 14 days from the date of its filing. If timely objections are filed, this Report
and Recommendation will be considered under advisement from the earlier of (1) 14 days
after the objections are filed, or (2) from the date a timely response is filed.
CASE 0:25-cv-02412-JRT-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 10/21/25 Page 6 of 6