Schmidt v. CNH Industrial America LLC

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, it appears that federal diversity jurisdiction is lacking, and the notice of removal does not set forth any other basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED to show cause by December 15, 2016, whether this Court has jurisdiction over this case, by filing the proper signed statements about the diversity of the parties, see Standing Order on Re moved Cases at 3, whether defendant intends to move to substitute the correct party in interest, and whether the intended party in interest is completely diverse from plaintiff. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/8/2016. (Gruber, Sarah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JAMES SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:16-cv-01995 (JAM)

CASE CORP. f/k/a CASE EQUIPMENT
CORP.,
Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides in relevant part that “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)
(emphasis added). On December 6, 2016, defendant, Case Corp. f/k/a Case Equipment Corp.,
filed a notice of removal of plaintiff’s asbestos litigation on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. It
alleges that the amount of controversy exceeds $75,000, and it alleges that the parties are diverse
because plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Connecticut, and defendant has its principal place of
business in Racine, Wisconsin. Doc. #1 at 2 ¶5.
But defendant corporation does not set forth the state in which it is incorporated, a
prerequisite for determining its dual citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Hercules Inc. v.
Dynamic Exp. Corp., 71 F.R.D. 101, 107 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (noting that the corporate diversity
statute “creates a principal of dual citizenship, not one of alternative citizenship” and that “where
a corporation is incorporated in state A and has its principal place of business in state B and the
adverse party is a citizen of either A or B, diversity is lacking”).
Defendant also states that it has been named improperly, and that the proper defendant is
“CNH Industrial America, LLC.” See Docs. #1 at 1, #1-3 at 2. But it has not filed a motion to

substitute the correct party; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c); and, even if it had, it fails to set forth the
basis for complete diversity, since it has not named any of CNH’s members, nor named the
citizenship of each of those members. See Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Aladdin
Capital Mgmt., 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[A] limited liability company . . . takes the
citizenship of each of its members.”).
It appears that federal diversity jurisdiction is lacking, and the notice of removal does not
set forth any other basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED to
show cause by December 15, 2016, whether this Court has jurisdiction over this case, by filing
the proper signed statements about the diversity of the parties, see Standing Order on Removed
Cases at ¶3, whether defendant intends to move to substitute the correct party in interest, and
whether the intended party in interest is completely diverse from plaintiff.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 8th day of December 2016.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

2