The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AUGUST J. LEVERT JR. FAMILY, CIVIL ACTION
LLC, ET AL.
VERSUS
BP AMERICA PRODUCTION NO. 19-00623-BAJ-EWD
COMPANY
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Remand (Doc. 22) submitted by Plaintiffs
August J. Levert, Jr. Family LLC (the “Levert LLC”), Ronald R. Levert, Paul M.
Levert, Mark W. Levert, Jr., John E. Sanford, James L. Sanford, and Campo E.
Maten. The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 26). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doce. 32), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
and return these consolidated actions to the 18th Judicial District Court, Iberville
Parish, Louisiana. Defendants BP America Production Company, Union Texas
International Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Key Production Company,
Atlantic Richfield Company, and Nova Chemicals Olefins, LLC object to the Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. 33). For reasons explained below, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendants have not met their burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties are of diverse
citizenship and, accordingly, adopts the Magistrate’s decision as its opinion here.
As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the dispositive issue is the membership
of Levert LLC. To establish federal jurisdiction—that is, to defeat Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Remand—-Defendants must prove that each member of Levert LLC is diverse from
Defendants. See PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. v. Providence Eng’g & Envt Grp., LLC,
No. 20-856, 2020 WL 7646381, at *1 (M.D. La. Dec. 28, 2020) (to properly allege the
citizenship of a limited liability company, a party must identify each of the members
of a limited hability company, and the citizenship of each member in accordance with
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1832(a) and (c)). And, because this dispute occurs at
removal, Defendants must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence—i.e.,
“that it is more likely than not that [their] version of the facts is true.”
Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 173 F.Supp. 3d 363, 384 n.9
(N.D. Tex. March 25, 2016). “Any ambiguities are construed against removal because
the removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand.”
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. And Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 728 (th Cir. 2002)
(citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Here, to establish diversity of citizenship, Defendants must prove that certain
non-diverse individuals are not actually Levert LLC members, and therefore their
citizenship does not apply to the diversity analysis. To do so, Defendants attempt to
show that Levert LLC did not follow its own requirements for welcoming new
members. Yet, the evidence Defendants have adduced falls far short of the
preponderance standard. Indeed, several factors create substantial ambiguity
regarding Levert LLC’s actual membership, including which Operating Agreement
provisions are applicable to which disputed nondiverse members, whether those
requirements were followed in each individual case, ambiguities within the
Operating Agreements themselves, as well as the fact that, for years, Levert LLC has
treated the disputed members as actual members.
In sum, Defendants task was a to prove a negative. They have not done it with
sufficient certainty to convince the Court that diversity of citizenship is established.
Thus, remand is required.!
Accordingly, having carefully considered the underlying Petition, the Motion
at issue, and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, and ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion herein.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand (Doc. 22) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Civil Action No. 19-623 be and is
REMANDED to the 18th Judicial District Court, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Civil Action No. 19-852 be and is
REMANDED to the 18th Judicial District Court, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this CF ioe of September, 2021
JUDGE ty i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
' Defendants’ primary objection to the Report and Recommendation is that it “misapplies the standard for evaluating
a motion to remand” by failing to “make factual findings concerning citizenship.” (Doc. 33-1 at 3-4). The Court
disagrees with Defendants’ assignment of error. Of course, factual matters can be resolved at this stage. The problem
here is a lack of unambiguous evidence: Defendants simply have nof proved it is more likely than not that the disputed
members are nof members of Levert LLC.