Crest Exteriors LLC v. Ohio Security Insurance Company
| Crest Exteriors LLC |
| Ohio Security Insurance Company |
| 1:2021cv00482 |
| February 18, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| S Kato Crews |
| William J Martinez |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 15, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 RESPONSE to 13 Order,,,,,,,,, to Show Cause by Plaintiff Crest Exteriors LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A Declaration of Samuel Struthers, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B Declaration of Logan Graff)(Sar, Jonathan) |
| Filing 14 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Crest Exteriors LLC. (Sar, Jonathan) |
Filing 13
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE returnable April 16, 2021. The Court has a duty to sua sponte consider its subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 based on the diversity of the parties. Plaintiff Crest Exteriors, LLC, is identified as a limited liability company. The Court must consider the citizenship of all members of the LLC in determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. See Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237 (10th Cir. 2015) ("only those state-created entities that are corporations, in the traditional understanding of that word, will be treated as a person for purposes of diversity jurisdiction"). As Plaintiff is invoking jurisdiction of the federal court, it bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper. Merida Delgado v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 916, 919 (10th Cir. 2005). As filed, Plaintiff's Complaint is deficient in that, apart from an unsubstantiated bald assertion to that effect, it fails to establish the citizenship of every member of Plaintiff Crest Exteriors, LLC. Further, to establish subject matter jurisdiction under 1332, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2004), and the Court "must rigorously enforce Congress' intent to restrict federal jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different states." Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001) abrogated on other grounds by Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014)). Here, Plaintiff's Complaint lacks any factual allegations that plausibly support its wholly conclusory claim that more than $75,000 is in dispute. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, by April 16, 2021, as to why the Court should not on its own motion dismiss this action based on Plaintiff's failure to allege facts sufficient to show that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/6/2021. Text Only Entry (wjmsec, )
|
| Filing 12 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to #10 Consent/Non-Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. All parties do not consent. This case is randomly reassigned to Judge William J. Martinez. All future pleadings should be designated as 21-cv-00482-WJM. (Text Only Entry) (jgonz, ) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jon M. Ludwig on behalf of Ohio Security Insurance CompanyAttorney Jon M. Ludwig added to party Ohio Security Insurance Company(pty:dft) (Ludwig, Jon) |
| Filing 10 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Defendant Ohio Security Insurance Company All parties do not consent.. (Spano, Brian) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Holly C. White on behalf of Ohio Security Insurance CompanyAttorney Holly C. White added to party Ohio Security Insurance Company(pty:dft) (White, Holly) |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, Attorney Brian John Spano added to party Ohio Security Insurance Company(pty:dft) by Ohio Security Insurance Company.(Spano, Brian) |
|
Filing 7
MINUTE ORDER Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference. Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 4/22/2021 10:30 AM in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. The parties shall file their proposed scheduling order, and email a copy in Word format to Crews_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov, on or before 4/15/2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that The Magistrate Judge Consent Form (ECF. #[3-1]) is due on or before 4/15/2021. At the scheduled time, counsel shall call the Court provided conference line at (888) 251-2909 Access Code: 5662814#. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 3/1/2021. Text Only Entry (amont, )
|
| Filing 6 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Plaintiff Crest Exteriors LLC. (Daly, Richard) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance Thomas Julian Archer by Thomas Julian Archer on behalf of Crest Exteriors LLCAttorney Thomas Julian Archer added to party Crest Exteriors LLC(pty:pla) (Archer, Thomas) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance Sean Bradley Leventhal by Sean Bradley Leventhal on behalf of Crest Exteriors LLCAttorney Sean Bradley Leventhal added to party Crest Exteriors LLC(pty:pla) (Leventhal, Sean) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (jtorr, ) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. Text Only Entry. (jtorr, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ohio Security Insurance Company (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number 1082-7724664)Attorney Richard D. Daly added to party Crest Exteriors, LLC(pty:pla), filed by Crest Exteriors, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons)(Daly, Richard) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
