
    GREENVILLE IMAGING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CORPORATION, doing business as The King’s Daughters Hospital, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
    No. 07-60715.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 15, 2009.
    
      Frank S. Thackston, Jr., Greenville, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appel-lee.
    Samuel Oliphant Morris, Gretchen Win-stead Kimble, Cory Louis Radicioni, Wise Carter Child & Caraway, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

In its review of the record herein in connection with consideration of the petition for rehearing filed herein by plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee Greenville Imaging, LLC in respect to our October 17, 2008, 297 Fed.Appx. 297, opinion herein, the court noted that subject matter jurisdiction herein of the district court is questionable, as reflected by the pleadings, in that it is founded only on diversity of citizenship and the sole defendant, Washington Hospital Corporation, is a Mississippi corporation, and one of the plaintiffs, indeed the sole plaintiff at and after the end of trial, is and was Greenville Imaging, LLC, an Arkansas Limited Liability Company, one of the members of which is Mid-South Sports Medicine and Orthopedic Surgery, LLC, a Mississippi Limited Liability Company, one of the members of which is a Jeff Almand, a Mississippi resident and citizen. We requested of the parties information and further briefing on this point in light of our holding in Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (5th Cir.2008), in which we held, joining “[a]ll federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue” (citing some eight circuit court decisions, five of which were handed down before this case was filed), that “like limited partnerships and other unincorporated associations or entities, the citizenship of a LLC is determined by the citizenship of all of its members.” In reply to our request the parties have confirmed the above stated information and further that under the rule of Harvey v. Grey Wolf the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

We are obliged to satisfy ourselves of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. WRIght & Miller, Cooper & Freer, Federal PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, Vol. 13, § 3522 at 126-132 (3rd Ed.2008).

The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, our prior opinion herein issued October 17, 2008, is withdrawn; the motion for rehearing directed thereto is therefore denied as moot; the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court with directions that it be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

VACATED and REMANDED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . The only exception to this is that defendant-appellee Washington Hospital Corporation argues that it is unfair to apply the Harvey v. Grey Wolf rule to cases that were filed in Mississippi federal district courts before that decision because it was generally assumed in Mississippi federal district courts that LLCs would be treated as corporations for diversity purposes. We reject this contention. We note that Harvey v. Grey Wolf did not overrule or depart from any prior decisions of this court or of any other Court of Appeals.
     