United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on Plaintiff's “Motion
to vacate the denial of her motion to remand based on
extrinsic fraud.” ECF No. 76. Plaintiff relies on
alleged “extrinsic fraud perpetrated . . . by
defendants” relating to the existence of diversity
jurisdiction. Id. at 1 (expressly relying on S.C. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)). More specifically, she argues defense
counsel committed fraud because one or more Defendants, their
law firm, and the defense attorney who signed pleadings
“understood that limited liability companies that are
owned by corporations have as their citizenship all the
shareholders [of the corporation] which in this case is
citizens of all fifty states[.]” Id. at 3. She
further alleges Defendant “Zymogenetics, LLC . . . has,
as its members, South Carolina citizens and residents based
on their status as shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb,
Defendants raise other arguments that might require denial of
Plaintiff's motion, the court declines to reach those
arguments because Plaintiff's central legal premise, that
an LLC with an upstream, corporate member is a citizen of the
same states as the corporation's shareholders, is
flawed. Plaintiff is correct that the citizenship
of an artificial entity other than a corporation is the same
as the citizenship of all of its members. See Carden v.
Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 189 (1990) (holding limited
partnerships are citizens of the same states as all partners
including limited partners); Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v.
Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114, 121 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding limited
liability company's “citizenship is that of its
Plaintiff errs is in ignoring the test for determining
citizenship of a corporation for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction. That test is established by 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c), which provides “a corporation shall be deemed
to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it
has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where
it has its principal place of business[.]” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff offers neither argument nor
evidence that any corporate member of Zymogenetics, LLC is
incorporated in or has its principal place of business in
South Carolina (the state of which Plaintiff is a citizen) or
that it has any members that are not corporations. She relies
solely on an argument Zymogenetics, LLC is a citizen of South
Carolina because shareholders of BSM, which Plaintiff
characterizes as an upstream corporate member of
Zymogenerics, LLC, include citizens of South Carolina. This
argument fails as it ignores the statutory test for
determining citizenship of a corporation.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
 The court deems the motion to be
pursued under the corresponding federal rule, Rule 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 Defendants argue the motion is
untimely and Plaintiff has failed to point to any fraud.
While the court declines to rule on either argument, it notes
the following weaknesses in both.
Timeliness. A motion for relief from “a final
judgment, order or proceeding” based on “fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party”
must be made “no more than a year after the entry of
the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), (c)(1). The present motion was filed
more than a year after the last preceding docket entry. See
ECF No. 75 (November 1, 2017 mandate and judgment on appeal);
ECF No. 76 (motion to vacate). The specifically-challenged
order or orders were entered substantially earlier. See ECF
No. 22 (April 7, 2016 order denying remand); ECF Nos. 53, 54
(September 15, 2016 order and judgment dismissing action);
ECF No. 65 (November 28, 2016 order denying motion to alter
judgment). Thus, regardless which prior entry is challenged,
the motion appears to be untimely.
Fraud. Even if Plaintiff's central legal premise
was correct, and it is not, she has failed to present any
evidence Defendants either withheld information or made
misrepresentations that precluded her from making her present
argument prior to entry of judgment. To the contrary,
Plaintiff herself alleged and Defendants disclosed
information reflecting both that Bristol Myers Squibb, Inc.
(“BSM”) was an upstream, indirect
“owner” of Zymogenetics, LLC, and that BSM was a
publicly traded company. See ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF No. 1-1
¶¶ 4, 6. ...