United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
S. HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cases were consolidated to create the case before the Court
â¢ On August 29, 2014, in this Court, Jaswant Singh Gill,
Shaun Singh Gill, Doc Call Live, LLC, CyMed Management
Associates, LLC d/b/a Doctors Express, and Healthema, LLC
sued Jagmohan Singh Grewal a/k/a Amind Corporation and
Healthema India Private Limited. (Docket No. 4:14-cv-2502).
â¢ On November 10, 2014, before a different district judge,
Jagmohan Singh Grewal, individually and on behalf of
Healthema, LLC sued Jaswant Singh Gill, Healthema, LLC, Shaun
Singh Gill, Jaswant Gill & Balbindar Gill, LLC, Cymed
Management Associates, LLC, and Cymed Tomball, P.A. (Docket
January 23, 2015, the cases were consolidated in this Court.
(Doc. No. 7). While considering cross motions for summary
judgment, this Court became concerned that it did not have
jurisdiction. Due to this concern, it asked for and received
additional briefing from the parties. It first asked for
briefing as to the citizenship/domicile of the parties to
determine if diversity jurisdiction exists. (Doc. No. 72).
Both sides responded to the order. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75). The
Court then followed with an order designed to determine if
there is another basis for jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 76). Both
sides responded to that order as well. (Doc. Nos. 77, 78).
does not merge the suits into a single cause, change the
rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one
suit parties in another." Int 7 Fid. Ins.
Co. v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp., 665 F.3d 671, 676 (5th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court
"must view each consolidated case separately to
determine the jurisdictional premise upon which each
stands." Kuehne & Nagel (AG & Co) v.
Geosource, Inc., 874 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1989).
While this proposition is not universally recognized, the
Court will accordingly assess whether subject matter
jurisdiction exists in each case, as it does not affect the
LLC is obviously a limited liability company. The citizenship
of a LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members.
Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077,
1080 (5th Cir. 2008). A party seeking to establish diversity
jurisdiction must specifically allege the citizenship of each
member of the LLC or partnership involved in a lawsuit.
Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements,
Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017). The parties did
not do so in this case.
in response to this Court's order, both sides provided
the relevant citizenship information. Mr. Grewal is a citizen
of California. Mr. Grewal is also a member of Healthema, LLC.
Consequently, Healthema, LLC has California citizenship.
Furthermore, Healthema, LLC is the sole member of Doc Call
Live LLC, meaning Doc Call Live LLC is also a citizen of
Docket No. 4:14-cv-2502
proceeding, Plaintiffs ("the Gill Parties") concede
that the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. In this
regard, they are correct, as Healthema, LLC and Doc Call Live
LLC (Plaintiffs) share California citizenship with Grewal
(Defendant). The Gill Parties assert, however, that there is
federal question jurisdiction owing to their federal
Declaratory Judgment Act claims: ". . . Plaintiffs filed
a complaint asserting a federal statutory cause of action for
declaratory judgment. Accordingly, this Court has
federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
Declaratory Judgment claim." (Doc. No. 77).
Gill Parties' contention, unfortunately, does not comport
with the law. Neither the federal Declaratory Judgment Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2201, nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57
confers subject matter jurisdiction. See Rogers v.
Ingolia, 424 Fed.Appx. 283, 288 (5th Cir. 2011) (".
. . the district court nonetheless correctly dismissed [the
plaintiffs] claim as 'no subject matter jurisdiction
exists because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer
subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court where none
otherwise exists.' . . . [T]he Declaratory Judgment Act
is not an independent ground for jurisdiction; it permits the
award of declaratory relief only when other bases for
jurisdiction are present." (some internal quotation
marks omitted)). The "Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., does not provide a
federal court with an independent basis for exercising
subject-matter jurisdiction." In re B-727 Aircraft
Serial No. 21010, 272 F.3d 264, 270 (5th Cir. 2001).
unless there is some other federal question pleaded, this
Court does not have jurisdiction. The Gill Parties'
claims in this lawsuit can be summarized as follows: (a)
breach of fiduciary duty; (b) breach of contract (with six
subparts); (c) a plea for a declaration that no money is owed
to Defendant; (d) a plea for a declaration that Defendant is
not entitled to any interest in Healthema, LLC; (e) a plea
for a declaration that Plaintiffs do not owe money to
Defendant for any attorneys' fees or costs; (f) a plea
for a declaration that CyMed Management Associates, LLC d/b/a
Doctors Express is not affiliated with Healthema, LLC and has
no liability or relationship to Defendant; (g) a plea for a
declaration that Defendant has no right to the trade name
"Doc Call Live"; and finally (h) a plea for a
declaration that Defendant may not control or be employed by
any business similar to that of Healthema, LLC. These are all
state law claims. There is not a federal question claim among
this Court has neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal
question jurisdiction and since no other basis of
jurisdiction has been suggested, this Court must conclude
that it lacks jurisdiction over Docket No. 4:14-cv-2502 and
dismiss the case.