Dowell v. Astrazeneca PLC, et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DARREN DOWELL 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 26-65
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS 	SECTION: “H”
AMERICA, INC.
ORDER AND REASONS
The 	Court 	now 	examines 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	sua 	sponte.
Defendant failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction in its Notice of
Removal. 	Accordingly, 	Defendant 	shall 	amend 	its 	notice 	to 	correct 	this
jurisdictional defect within 20 days of the entry of this Order.
This 	Court 	is 	duty-bound 	to 	examine 	the 	basis 	of 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction sua sponte.1 Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised
upon diversity of citizenship.2 Cases arising under § 1332 require, inter alia,
complete diversity of citizenship.3 “The concept of complete diversity requires
that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states
than all persons on the other side.”4
1 Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Union Planters Bank
Nat’l Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004)).
2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3 Stiftung v. Plains Mktg., L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
4 McClaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
Case 2:26-cv-00065-JTM-DPC Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 4

2
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, 	the “citizenship of a LLC is
determined by the citizenship of all of its members.”5 Accordingly, the party
invoking federal jurisdiction must list each member and the citizenship of each
member of each limited liability company to properly allege diversity of
citizenship.6 Defendants have failed to adequately plead the citizenship of the
Wyeth LLC.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a
citizen of every state in which it has been incorporated and of the state where
it has its principal place of business.”7 Thus, “[i]n cases involving corporations,
allegations of citizenship must set forth the state of incorporation as well as
the principal place of business for each corporation.”8 A party’s citizenship
“cannot be established argumentatively or by mere inference.”9 In its Notice of
Removal, 	Defendant 	has 	failed 	to 	adequately 	allege 	the 	citizenship 	of
Defendant Perrigo Company, Aztrazeneca PLC, and Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited.10
5 Harvey v. Grey Wold Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008).
6 Bona Fide Demolition & Recovery, LLC v. Crosby Constr. Co. of Louisiana, Inc., No.
07–3115, 2009 WL 413504, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2009) (citations omitted); see also Pyramid
Transp., Inc. v. Greatwide Dallas Mavis, LLC, No. 12–0149, 2013 WL 840664, at *6 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 7, 2013) (“The citizenship of each member of a limited liability company must be
alleged.” (citations omitted)); Toney v. Knauf Gips KG, No. 12–638, 2012 WL 5923960, at *1
(M.D. La. Oct. 25, 2012) (“[T]o properly allege the citizenship of a limited liability company .
. . the party asserting jurisdiction must identify each of the entity’s members . . . and the
citizenship of each [member].” (internal footnote and citations omitted)).
7 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
8 Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
9 Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. Co., v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636 (5th Cir. 1983)
(internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).
10 See Green Coast Enters., LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. CV 22-973,
2022 WL 2208206, at *5 (E.D. La. June 21, 2022) (stating that district courts “have held that
Case 2:26-cv-00065-JTM-DPC Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Defendant’s failure to properly allege citizenship is not fatal.11 28 U.S.C.
§ 1653 provides that “[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended,
upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” A district court’s decision to permit
amendment under § 1653 turns on the nature of the jurisdictional defect.12
Where “jurisdictional problems are of the ‘technical’ or ‘formal’ variety, they
fall squarely within the ambit of § 1653.”13 Thus, amendment should be
allowed where “‘diversity jurisdiction was not questioned by the parties and
there is no suggestion in the record that it does not in fact exist.’”14 The record
in this matter does not reveal, nor has any party argued, that diversity
jurisdiction is not present. Accordingly, Defendant is granted leave to amend
the Notice of Removal to allege “distinctly and affirmatively” the jurisdictional
facts that give rise to diversity jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to
adequately allege diversity of citizenship. Defendant is granted leave to amend
the Notice of Removal within 20 days from the entry of this Order. Failure to
file timely an amended notice will result in dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
“[United Kingdom] private limited companies are treated as corporations for the purposes of
diversity subject-matter jurisdiction.”).
11 See Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 887 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
12 Id. at 888.
13 Id.
14 Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 806 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Leigh v. Nat’l
Aeronautics & Space Admin., 860 F.2d 652, 653 (5th Cir. 1988)).
Case 2:26-cv-00065-JTM-DPC Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 4

4
New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00065-JTM-DPC Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 4