Bruno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ALL TRENDZ HEALTHCARE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:26-cv-35

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

WENDY M. BRUNO,

d/b/a HealthCell, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff, All Trendz Healthcare, LLC, filed its Complaint on January 12, 2026, relying

on diversity of citizenship to satisfy federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)

(Complaint, ECF No. 1). The undersigned notes a defect in Plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdiction.

See Loftis v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 342 F.3d 509, 516–17 (6th Cir. 2003) (defects in subject-

matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte and at any time). A federal court has original

diversity jurisdiction where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Rogers v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 871 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1332(a) “applies only to cases

in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.”

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). “The burden of persuasion for establishing

diversity jurisdiction . . . remains on the party asserting it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77,

96 (2010) (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains insufficient information to establish the parties’

diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff alleges only that “Plaintiff is a medical care service provider

with its principal office located in Pickerington, Ohio” and “Defendant is a natural person

currently residing in Huntersville, North Carolina.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 7–8, ECF No. 1.) However,

Plaintiff is a limited liability company (“LLC”) and the place of an LLC’s organization and

principal place of business are irrelevant to establishing citizenship under § 1332. Instead,

Plaintiff must identify the citizenship of each of its members. See Delay v. Rosenthal Collins

Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009). Moreover, Defendant’s “current” residence is

insufficient to establish the citizenship of a natural person. Instead, Plaintiff must allege facts to

establish Plaintiff’s domicile within a particular state. See Persinger v. Extendicare Health

Servs., Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 995, 996 (S.D. Ohio 2008). Without this information, the Court

cannot determine whether Defendant is a citizen of a different state than Plaintiff.

Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Plaintiff was required to file a

disclosure statement that names and identifies the citizenship of every individual or entity whose

citizenship is attributed to it with its first appearance in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2), (b).

Plaintiff has not done so.

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to file a disclosure statement within SEVEN DAYS

identifying the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to it at the

time the case was commenced. See Kaiser v. Loomis, 391 F.2d 1007, 1009 (6th Cir. 1968). The

disclosure statement must provide sufficient factual allegations for the Court to determine each

party’s citizenship according to the following standards:

Limited liability companies have the citizenship of each of their members. Delay v.

Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009). In practice, this means that an

LLC’s members must be identified to determine whether they are natural persons, corporations,

LLCs, or partnerships, so that the appropriate test can be applied to determine the members’

citizenship. “[B]ecause a member of a limited liability company may itself have multiple

members—and thus may itself have multiple citizenships—the federal court needs to know the

citizenship of each ‘sub-member’ as well.” Id. The citizenship of unincorporated associations,

such as LLCs, “must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may

be.” Kam Dev., LLC v. Marco’s Franchising, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-2024, 2023 WL 4460669,

at *2 (N.D Ohio June 1, 2023) (quoting Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616,

617 (7th Cir.2002)).

Natural persons have the citizenship of the state in which they are domiciled. Von

Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir. 1990). Although this will often coincide with

the state in which a natural person resides, “domicile is not synonymous with a person’s

residence.” Persinger v. Extendicare Health Servs., Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 995, 996 (S.D. Ohio

2008) (citing Kaiser, 391 F.2d at 1009). “To acquire a domicile within a particular state, a person

must be physically present in the state and must have either the intention to make his home there

indefinitely or the absence of an intention to make his home elsewhere.” Stifel v. Hopkins, 477

F.2d 1116, 1120 (6th Cir. 1973). Domicile is determined based on “a variety of factors indicating

the extent of a particular party’s ties to the purported domicile.” Persinger, 539 F. Supp. at 997.

Those factors include:

[c]urrent residence; voting registration and voting practices; location of personal

and real property; location of brokerage and bank accounts; membership in unions;

fraternal organizations, churches, clubs and other associations; place of

employment or business; driver licenses and other automobile registration; [and]

payment of taxes.

Id. (quoting 13B Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice

and Procedure § 3612 (2d ed. 1984)).

Corporations have the citizenship of any state in which they are incorporated and in

which they have a principal place of business. Hertz Corp., 559 U.S. at 80. A corporation’s

“principal place of business” refers to

the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the

corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have called the

corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place where

the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the

actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center,” and not

simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example,

attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the occasion).

Id. at 92–93.

Partnerships and limited partnerships have the citizenship of each of their partners

(both general and limited). Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 n.1 (2005) (citing

Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 192–97 (1990)). Thus, similar to LLCs, all partners of

a partnership must be identified and their citizenship determined with the appropriate test.

Sole proprietorships have the citizenship of their sole proprietor (i.e., a natural person

doing business under a business name). Lyerla v. Amco Ins. Co., 461 F. Supp. 2d 834, 836 (S.D.

Ill. 2006); Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1984); 3LI Consultant

Grp. v. Cath. Health Partners, No. 1:15-CV-455, 2016 WL 246202, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 21,

2016). Thus, sole proprietorships have the citizenship of the state of domicile of their operator.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship of the

parties will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura

CHELSEY M. VASCURA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE