Hughes v. ALDI (Texas) LLC
| Tonya Hughes |
| ALDI (Texas) LLC |
| 3:2024cv00485 |
| February 29, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 23, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Certificate of Written Discovery filed by ALDI (Texas) LLC (Cox, Clinton) |
| Filing 16 Designation of Mediator by ALDI (Texas) LLC. (Cox, Clinton) |
Filing 15
SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 9/15/2025 09:00 AM before Judge Ed Kinkeade. Deadline for mediation is on or before 7/19/2024. Joint Report on mediation due by 7/26/2024. Joinder of Parties due by 5/31/2024. Amended Pleadings due by 5/31/2024. Discovery due by 1/10/2025. Motions due by 2/28/2025. Pretrial Order due by 8/25/2025. Pretrial Materials due by 8/25/2025. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/19/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 14 Joint STATUS REPORT Regarding Contents of Scheduling Order filed by ALDI (Texas) LLC. (Cox, Clinton) |
| Filing 13 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Tonya Hughes. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Bauguss, James) |
|
Filing 12
ELECTRONIC ORDER: On March 1, 2024, the Court entered an order detailing the citizenship disclosure requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) in cases where subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S. C. 1332(a). See Doc. No. 7. Although this order addressed the deficiency with Defendant's certificate of interested persons, the Court very pointedly directed that "Plaintiff shall be mindful of Rule 7.1(a)(2)'s required citizenship disclosure statement when filing her certificate of interested persons." Id. Yet, on March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Certificate of Interested Persons which fails to include this required disclosure statement. See Doc. No. 11. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file an amended certificate of interested persons which includes the required statement of Rule 7.1(a)(2) by March 12, 2024.The Court has now addressed the same issue twice, wasting the Court's time and resources. The Court expects all parties to read every order issued in this matter. The failure of either party to comply with any order of this Court may result in a show cause order and sanctions imposed upon the offending party and/or counsel. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/11/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 11 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Tonya Hughes. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Bauguss, James) |
| Filing 10 AMENDED DOCUMENT by ALDI (Texas) LLC. Amendment to #1 Notice of Removal, 7 Order. . (Cox, Clinton) |
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw and for Substitution of Attorney in Charge (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 8). The Court has considered the Motion and finds the relief should be and hereby is GRANTED. Braden Burleson, of Ben Abbott & Associates, PLLC, is terminated as counsel of record for Plaintiff. James Bauguss III, also of Ben Abbott & Associates, PLLC, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for Plaintiff. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/5/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Substitute Attorney, added attorney James Leonard Bauguss, III, for Tonya Hughes. Motion filed by Tonya Hughes (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER) Attorney James Leonard Bauguss, III added to party Tonya Hughes(pty:pla) (Bauguss, James) Modified party text on 3/4/2024 (kcr). |
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Defendant removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S. C. 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 2. In cases where subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity under 1332(a), Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires that each party's disclosure statement "must name--and identify the citizenship of--every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) (effective December 1, 2022) (emphasis added). Defendant timely filed its Certificate of Interested Parties/Disclosure Statement (Doc. No. 2), but it does not include this required citizenship disclosure statement. Assuming Defendant properly amends its Notice of Removal in accordance with the Court's prior order, see Doc. No. 6, Defendant shall file an amended certificate of interested parties/disclosure statement, which includes Rule 7.1(a)(2)'s required statement, by March 15, 2024. Defendant is reminded that the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of each of its members, whose names and citizenships must be identified, as well as all sub-members. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990); Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017); V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010).Plaintiff shall be mindful of Rule 7.1(a)(2)'s required citizenship disclosure statement when filing her certificate of interested persons. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/1/2024) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Defendant Aldi (Texas) LLC ("Defendant") removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 2. Although the jurisdictional amount is met, see Doc. No. 1-1 at 4, Defendant fails to properly allege either party's citizenship. "When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship must be 'distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988).Turning first to Plaintiff's citizenship, Defendant alleges, "[u]pon information and belief, Plaintiff was and continues to reside in the state of Texas." Doc. No. 1 at 2. "[C]itizenship and residence, as often declared by this court, are not synonymous terms." Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648 (1878). "For natural persons, 1332 citizenship is determined by domicile, which requires residency plus an intent to make the place of residency one's permanent home." SXSW, L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 568-69 (1915)); accord Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2007) ("Domicile requires the demonstration of two factors: residence and the intention to remain."). In alleging only the State of Plaintiff's residency, Defendant does not "distinctly and affirmatively" allege Plaintiff's citizenship. See Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259. Defendant also fails to properly allege its own citizenship. Defendant alleges it "was and is a business with its principal place of business located at 1200 N. Kirk Rd., Batavia, Illinois 60510." Doc. No. 1 at 2. By its name, Defendant appears to be a limited liability company ("LLC"), the citizenship of which is determined by the citizenship of all of its members. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990); see also V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010) (court must also know citizenship of each "sub-member"). Further, the allegations of an LLC's citizenship must include the identity of each member as well as each member's citizenship. Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017); Hise Real Estate Invs., LP v. Great Lakes Ins. SE, 2021 WL 217264, at *2 (E.D. Jan. 21, 2021). The Court is unconcerned with the State in which Defendant's principal place of business is located unless one of its members is also a citizen of that State. Defendant does not distinctly and affirmatively allege its own citizenship. See Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259. The Court has an obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31 (1990); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) ("[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level."). At this time, the Court cannot determine whether there is complete diversity of the parties' citizenship and, thus, whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. As the party seeking the federal forum, Defendant bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Defendant may amend its Notice of Removal to remedy the jurisdictional deficiencies identified in this Order by March 8, 2024. If Defendant fails to amend or fails to do so sufficiently, the Court will REMAND this case without further notice. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (in action removed from state court, federal court must remand case any time before final judgment if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/1/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 5 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Toliver). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (agc) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/29/2024) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER REQUIRING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND REPORT FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/29/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by ALDI (Texas) LLC. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Cox, Clinton) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by ALDI (Texas) LLC. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-14428905) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Petition, #2 Exhibit(s) Return of Service, #3 Exhibit(s) Answer, #4 Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Cox, Clinton) |
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 Texas Northern 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
| Search for this case: Hughes v. ALDI (Texas) LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Tonya Hughes | |
| Represented By: | Braden Burleson |
| Represented By: | James Leonard Bauguss, III |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: ALDI (Texas) LLC | |
| Represented By: | Clinton V Cox, IV |
| Represented By: | Shabaz Aslam Nizami |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
