In V&M Star, LP. v. Centimark Corp., No. 09-3249, the Sixth Circuit dealt with the issue of whether diversity jurisdiction existed between a defendant corporation who is a citizen of Pennsylvania and plaintiff, a limited partnership that includes two limited liability companies and one French S.A.R.L.
After plaintiff's second amended complaint, in response to defendant's motion to dismiss as insufficient to establish diveristy jurisdiction, the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss as moot because defendant no longer contested diversity jurisdiction.
Concluding that, despite defendant having waived the issue, district court had an obligation to go further, the case is remanded to resolve the jurisdictional issue by determining plaintiff's due to: 1) the complexity of the jurisdictional facts because of the members and submembers that comprise plaintiff-company; and 2) the fact that there are no controlling precedent regarding how to determine citizenship of a French S.A.R.L. for diversity jurisdiction purposes.