Bullington

Provident Energy Associates v. Bullington

Good Law
77 F. App'x 427
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 7, 2003No. 02-35798; D.C. No. CV-01-00055-SEHCalifornia1,264 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Provident Energy Associates (“Provident”) brought this suit for declaratory judgment against Foy Wallace Bullington, O.O. Thompson, and Murphy Phillips, individually and as executor of the Estate of Ford Fullingim (“Bullington Parties”), requesting a declaration that Provident owns the Two Medicine Cut Bank Sand Unit (“TMCBSU”) and all the revenue and royalties produced therefrom, and that the Bullington Parties had no rights to or interest in either Provident or any of its assets (including the TMCBSU). The district court granted summary judgment to Provident on the basis of a judicial admission made by the Bullington Parties in their pleadings. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not repeat them here.

1. The Bullington Parties first argue that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no diversity of citizenship among the parties. This argument is without merit. The citizenship of Provident, a Montana limited liability company, is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 , 110 S.Ct. 1015 , 108 L.Ed.2d 157 (1990) (holding that, for the purpose…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.