ALONZO WILSON, Magistrate Judge
This matter was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, "citizenship must be ` distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil, Div. Of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of North America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted) (emphasis in citing source). This rule requires "strict adherence." Id.
One of the two named defendants in this matter is "Underwriters at Lloyd's London." This matter was removed to federal court by an Underwriter at Lloyd's London, Chaucer Non-Marine Syndicate 1096 ("the Chaucer Syndicate"). (Notice of Removal). However, an insured has no claim against a Syndicate for coverage under a Lloyd's policy. Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 865 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, a Syndicate arguably does not even exist as an artificial entity. Id. (citations omitted). Instead, one or more of the Names on the policy is the proper defendant in this matter. Id. Although, a Syndicate can be comprised of a single Name, there is no allegation that the Chaucer Syndicate is so situated. Corfield, supra. In other words, if the Chaucer Syndicate is a single-Name Syndicate, then its composition and citizenship have not been sufficiently alleged for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. If the Chaucer Syndicate is a multi-name Syndicate, then arguably it is not a proper party to the case. See, Corfield, supra. If the Chaucer Syndicate is a single-Name Syndicate acting in representative capacity on behalf of other Names, then removing defendant may be required to allege the citizenship of all the other Names on the policy. See, Corfield, supra. Finally, removing defendant has not established that its percentage of exposure exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. See, Corfield, supra.
A Syndicate is a group of underwriters or Names. Corfield, 355 F.3d at 858.
In its Notice of Removal, the Chaucer Syndicate alleges only that it is a "foreign business entity formed under the laws of the United Kingdom with its principal place of business in the United Kingdom." (Notice of Removal, ¶ 10). The nature of the entity is not specified.
Accordingly, removing defendant is granted 11 days from today to file an amended notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 which establishes diversity jurisdiction between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If defendant fails to so comply, or if jurisdiction is lacking, then remand will be recommended.
Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to remand. [doc. # 23]. One of the issues raised by the motion is whether plaintiff has any reasonable possibility of recovery against the non-diverse defendant. The Fifth Circuit has noted that, "[s]ummary judgment will always be appropriate in favor of a defendant against whom there is no possibility of recovery." Carriere v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 893 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, parties are hereby notified that if, and only if, we find that plaintiff has no possibility of recovery against the non-diverse defendant, then we will also enter summary judgment in favor of said defendants. On, or before December 18, 2006, the parties may submit any additional briefs and/or competent summary judgment evidence as to this issue.
The court observes that plaintiff's petition does not appear to allege any claims against the removing defendant. ( See, Petition). Thus, the parties shall further address whether dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the non-diverse defendant will also effectively dispose of all claims against the diverse party. See, Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) ( en banc).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers at Lake Charles, Louisiana.