# Colbert v. Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma, LLC

> District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062509

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** May 30, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062509

## Opinion text

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ANGELA ROCHELLE COLBERT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
Case No. 25-cv-00173-SH
)
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF )
OKLAHOMA, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand.1 Defendant has utterly failed to
plead diversity jurisdiction, respond to the Court’s order to show cause, or respond to the
motion to remand. The Court can discern no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, and
this case will be remanded.
Background
Plaintiff Angela Rochelle Colbert (“Colbert”) filed suit in Oklahoma state court on
March 13, 2025, asserting a state-law claim of negligence against Defendant Family Dollar
Stores of Oklahoma, LLC (“Family Dollar”). (ECF No. 1-2.) On April 14, 2025, Family
Dollar removed to this court, asserting diversity of citizenship. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6.) The
notice of removal states that “Defendant is a corporation with its principal place of
business in Chesapeake, Virginia” (id. ¶ 5), but Family Dollar’s stated name and the
documentation attached to the notice (ECF No. 1-4) indicate that it is not a corporation
but a limited liability company. The notice did not provide the citizenship of Family
Dollar’s members. Also on April 14th, Family Dollar filed a disclosure statement,
asserting it was both an individual and a corporation. (ECF No. 2.)

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge for all purposes
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a). (ECF No. 17.)
ordered it to file a corrected disclosure statement by April 22, 2025. (ECF No. 6.) The
order reminded Family Dollar that, for diversity purposes, a limited liability company is
a citizen of every state in which a member is a citizen. (Id. (citing Siloam Springs Hotel,
L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237–38 (10th Cir. 2015)).) The April 22nd
deadline passed without Family Dollar correcting its disclosure statement or otherwise
providing the information necessary to determine its citizenship.
On April 23, 2025, the Court entered an order directing Family Dollar to show
cause why this matter should not be remanded to the state court for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) The order gave Family Dollar until May 6, 2025, to respond.
(Id. at 2.) The May 6th deadline passed without any response from Family Dollar.
On May 6, 2025, Colbert filed a motion to remand, asserting that Family Dollar

has failed to meet its burden of establishing jurisdiction. (ECF No. 15.) Pursuant to LCvR
7-1(e), Family Dollar’s deadline to respond to the motion was May 27, 2025. The May
27th deadline passed without any response from Family Dollar.
Analysis
“[A] defendant seeking to remove a case to a federal court must file in the federal
forum a notice of removal ‘containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for
removal.’” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014) (quoting
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)). This requirement tracks the general pleading requirement found in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and the defendant’s allegations are accepted when not contested by
the plaintiff or questioned by the court. Cf. id. (referring to the amount-in-controversy
requirement). Treating the notice of removal in the same manner as a pleading, the Court

considers the documents attached to the notice. Doe v. Integris Health, Inc., 123 F.4th
1189, 1191 n.1 (10th Cir. 2024) (“When courts review a notice of removal for jurisdiction,
(quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., 25 F.4th 1238, 1247 n.1
(10th Cir. 2022))).
In its notice of removal, Family Dollar states that it “is a corporation with its
principal place of business in Chesapeake, Virginia,” citing the attached Exhibit 3. (ECF
No. 1 ¶ 5.) Exhibit 3, however, is what appears to be a printout from the Virginia State
Corporation Commission’s website which shows an “Entity Name” of “Family Dollar
Stores of Oklahoma, LLC,” and an “Entity Type” of “Limited Liability Company.” (ECF
No. 1-4 at 1.) The exhibit further shows that Family Dollar was formed on January 27,
2016, and that its status is still active. (Id.) As such, it appears that Family Dollar is a
limited liability company, making its principal place of business irrelevant to the
jurisdictional inquiry. Instead, Family Dollar’s citizenship is determined by the

citizenship of its members. See Siloam Springs Hotel, 781 F.3d at 1237–38. The notice
of removal does not contain a plausible allegation of diversity of citizenship. Cf. Dart, 574
U.S. at 554 (“a defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”). It is due to this
discrepancy that the Court questioned the basis of jurisdiction.
Once such a question is raised, “the ‘party invoking diversity jurisdiction bears the
burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.’” Brown v.
Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 21-4122, 2023 WL 4174064, at *4 (10th Cir. June 26, 2023)
(unpublished)2 (quoting Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014));
see also Suncor, 25 F.4th at 1250 (“The Energy Companies, as the parties removing to

2 Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but they may be cited for their persuasive
value. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
federal court, bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
evidence.”).
It appears to be undisputed that Colbert is a citizen of Oklahoma.’ (ECF No. 1 9 4;
ECF No. 9 at 1.) As for Family Dollar, the Court lacks sufficient information regarding the
citizenship of its members.’ A party may remove a case to federal court under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a) only when it is a civil action of which the federal district court would have
original jurisdiction. As relevant here, to have original jurisdiction, the action would have
to be between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(). Here, there is no
evidence that Family Dollar lacks Oklahoma citizenship. Family Dollar has failed to meet
its burden.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Remand (ECF No. 15) is
GRANTED. This case is remanded to the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Case
No. CJ-2020-1105.
ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2025.
Ce =] Jed IRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 Family Dollar’s notice of removal merely states that Colbert is a “resident” of Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma. (ECF No. 1 44.) For an individual, citizenship is determined by
domicile, not mere residence. Siloam Springs Hotel, 781 F.3d at 1238. However, Colbert
subsequently filed a disclosure statement admitting that she is a citizen of Oklahoma.
(ECF No. 9 at 1.)
Family Dollar’s disclosure statement states that it is a “wholly-owned subsidiary of
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.” (ECF No. 2 at 2.) It is not clear
whether such an entity exists and is active under Delaware law. Even assuming it does
and is the sole member of Family Dollar, Defendant has not identified the principal place
of business for this corporation, despite numerous opportunities to do so. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062509. Public record. Not legal advice.