Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
D. PATRICK SMITHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., Defendants - Appellees
D. Patrick Smitherman, proceeding pro se, brought suit against Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC in Texas state court, alleging various state law claims regarding foreclosure proceedings related to Smitherman's mortgage loan. Bayview removed to federal court under a diversity jurisdiction theory. The district court denied Smitherman's motion to remand and then dismissed Smitherman's claims with prejudice.
But on appeal, Bayview now concedes that “jurisdiction is not established on the record before the court.” Specifically, the record fails to provide enough information to determine whether complete diversity exists between the parties. There is no dispute that Smitherman is a citizen of Texas, but Bayview's citizenship is unclear.
The citizenship of a limited liability company such as Bayview is “determined by the citizenship of all of its members.” Tewari De-Ox Sys., Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen, L.L.C., 757 F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008)). Bayview's sole member is Bayview Asset Management, LLC, which is itself a limited liability company with “multiple members that are limited liability companies.” Bayview concedes “that the current record neither identifies nor establishes the citizenship of all of those sub members at the time of removal.” If any of those members was a citizen of Texas at the time of removal, complete diversity would be destroyed.
Accordingly, we order a limited REMAND to the district court to permit supplementation of the record and to make findings regarding Bayview's citizenship. After the district court has made these determinations, the district court's amended opinion shall return to this panel for appropriate action. We retain jurisdiction during the pendency of the limited remand. Wheeler v. City of Columbus, 686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir. 1982).
PER CURIAM:*
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-20328
Decided: January 11, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)