Corzine et al v. Safeguard Properties LLC et al

Filing 5

ORDER re Amended Complaint 3 . See Written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 6/23/2015. (KZ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 23 June, 2015 10:55:53 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
WILLIAM O. CORZINE and
BARBREE E. CORZINE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:15-cv-01240-JES-JEH

v.
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES, LLC
and DAVID BROWN,
Defendants.
Order

The Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) asserts diversity of citizenship
as the basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The allegations of the
Amended Complaint do not sufficiently support that assertion.
The Amended Complaint alleges the following information about the
parties. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Illinois. Defendant Safeguard
Properties, LLC is a limited liability company, and is a citizen of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business located in Valley View, Ohio.
Defendant David Brown’s citizenship is unknown to the Plaintiffs “at this time.”
First, citizenship for diversity purposes of a limited liability company is
the citizenship of each of its members. Wise v Wachovia Securities, LLC, 450 F3d
265, 267 (7th Cir 2006). Thus, the Court must know the identity of each member
of Safeguard Properties, LLC, as well as each member’s citizenship.

Hicklin

Engineering, LC v Bartell, 439 F3d 346, 348 (7th Cir 2006). If applicable, the Court
must also know each member’s members’ citizenship. Id.
Second, the allegation that a named individual’s citizenship is unknown at
the time of the filing of the original complaint is inadequate to invoke diversity
1

jurisdiction where jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at
the time the action is brought. Grupo Dataflux v Atlas Global Group, LP, 541 US
567, 570 (2004); see Meyerson v Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F3d 616, 617 (7th
Cir 2002) (vacating judgment and remanding case to district court for further
proceedings, including possible dismissal without prejudice to be refiled in state
court, where plaintiffs alleged their residence rather than citizenship and they
failed to indicate the citizenship of any of the defendants); see also America’s Best
Inns, Inc v Best Inns of Abilene, LP, 980 F2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir 1992) (“to the best
of my knowledge and belief” is insufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction); Page
v Wright, 116 F2d 449, 451 (7th Cir 1940) (expressing serious doubts as to whether
the record could be sustained in the face of a direct jurisdictional attack where
diversity jurisdiction was asserted, in part, based upon information and belief).
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are directed to file a second amended complaint
that adequately alleges the factual basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.
amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of this date.
Entered on June 23, 2015.

s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

The