Collins v. Enterprise Logistics Services, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
STEVEN COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:26-cv-3337-GBW-KRS
ENTERPRISE LOGISTICS SERVICES,
LLC; and ALBINO AULERA,
Defendants.
ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff filed this action on October 6,
2026, citing diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1, ¶ 4). “Federal courts ‘have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from
any party,’ and thus a court may sua sponte raise the question of whether there is subject matter
jurisdiction ‘at any stage in the litigation.’” 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459
F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)).
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Having considered the Complaint and the applicable law, the
Court finds that the Complaint fails to allege facts necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction.
1. 	Citizenship of an LLC
The Complaint alleges that “[t]his Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1),” 	because 	“[t]here 	is 	complete 	diversity 	of 	citizenship 	between 	Plaintiff 	and
Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”
(Doc. 1 ¶ 4). Federal “district courts . . . have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
Case 2:26-cv-03337-GBW-KRS Document 3 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff is “required to allege
sufficient facts in his complaint to show that the district court ha[s] subject matter jurisdiction over
his claims, and mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are insufficient.” Harris v. PBC
NBADL, LLC, 444 F. App’x 300, 301 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Penteco Corp. v. Union Gas Sys.,
Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991)). The “Jurisdiction And Venue” section of the
Complaint contains only a conclusory allegation of subject matter jurisdiction, which is
insufficient. Looking beyond that allegation to the facts alleged in other paragraphs of the
Complaint, the Court is still unable to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction is proper in
this case. Specifically, the Court is unable to determine the citizenship of Defendant Enterprise
Logistics Services, LLC from the facts alleged in the Complaint.
The Complaint alleges that “Defendant Enterprise Logistics Services, LLC is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business
in Houston, Texas.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 2). Citizenship of a limited liability company for diversity purposes,
however, is not determined by its place of organization or principal place of business. Rather, “[a]n
LLC, as an unincorporated association, takes the citizenship of all its members.” Gerson v. Logan
River Acad., 20 F.4th 1263, 1269 n.2 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v.
Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2015)). Moreover, “[w]hen an entity is composed
of multiple layers of constituent entities, the citizenship determination requires an exploration of
the citizenship of the constituent entities as far down as necessary to unravel fully the citizenship
of the entity before the court.” Woodward, Inc. v. Zhro Sols., LLC, No. 18-CV-01468-PAB, 2018
WL 11455060, at *2 (D. Colo. June 13, 2018). Plaintiff has not identified the members that
comprise Defendant Enterprise Logistics Services, LLC, or the citizenship of those members.
Case 2:26-cv-03337-GBW-KRS Document 3 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine from the Complaint whether complete diversity of
citizenship exists.
2. 	Rule 7.1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) requires that, “[i]n an action in which jurisdiction
is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a party or intervenor must, unless the court orders
otherwise, file a disclosure statement” that “name[s]—and identif[ies] the citizenship of—every
individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
7.1(a)(2). The disclosure statement must be filed with the party’s “first appearance, pleading,
petition, motion, response or other request addressed to the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b)(1).
Accordingly, the Court will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to remedy the deficient jurisdictional
allegations in the Complaint after Enterprise Logistics Services, LLC files its disclosure statement.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the
trial or appellate courts.”).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, no later than seven (7) days after Enterprise
Logistics Services, LLC appears in the case and files its disclosure statement, Plaintiff shall file an
Amended Complaint that properly alleges facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, if such
allegations can be made in compliance with the dictates of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Should Enterprise Logistics Services, LLC appear in the case without filing a corporate disclosure
statement as required by Rule 7.1, Plaintiff shall immediately take steps to ensure that the corporate
disclosure statement gets filed, including attempting to meet and confer with opposing counsel
concerning the statement’s filing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court
may recommend that the Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case 2:26-cv-03337-GBW-KRS Document 3 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2026.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-03337-GBW-KRS Document 3 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 4