136 S. Ct. 1012 (2016)
In 1991, an underground food-storage warehouse caught fire, destroying food owned by several corporations.1 Those corporations, citizens of Delaware, Nebraska, and Illinois, filed a lawsuit in Kansas state court against the warehouse owner.2 The owner is Americold Realty Trust, a real estate investment trust formed under Maryland law.3 The corporations sought compensation for their losses from the fire.4
Americold removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.5 It asserted that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states.6 The District Court accepted the case and entered judgment for Americold.7
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard the appeal.8 It ordered supplemental briefing on whether the District Court properly exercised jurisdiction.9 The appellate court found that jurisdiction was absent due to the lack of information about the citizenship of Americold's shareholders.10
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.11 It heard argument on January 19, 2016.12 The Court issued its decision on March 7, 2016.13
Whether the citizenship of Americold Realty Trust for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined by the citizenship of its members, including its shareholders?14
Diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against an unincorporated entity depends on the citizenship of all its members, and a real estate investment trust organized under Maryland law possesses the citizenship of its shareholders as members.15
Yes. The facts establish that in 1991 an underground food-storage warehouse caught fire, destroying food owned by several corporations that were citizens of Delaware, Nebraska, and Illinois.16 Those corporations filed suit in Kansas state court against Americold Realty Trust, a real estate investment trust formed under Maryland law, seeking compensation for their losses.17
Americold removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas asserting diversity jurisdiction.18 The District Court accepted jurisdiction and entered judgment for Americold.19 On appeal, the Tenth Circuit ordered supplemental briefing and concluded that jurisdiction was lacking because Americold's citizenship depended on its shareholders and no record of their citizenship existed.20
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard argument on January 19, 2016, before issuing its decision on March 7, 2016.21 Under the legal rule, Americold as an unincorporated entity possesses the citizenship of all its members.22 Maryland law treats the real estate investment trust as an unincorporated business trust or association in which shareholders have ownership interests and votes, making them members.23 Because the record lacked information on the shareholders' citizenship, the parties failed to demonstrate complete diversity.24
Americold's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes is based on the citizenship of its members, including its shareholders.25