Mumford, Sr. et al v. DIRECTSAT USA, LLC

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/20/2010:Mailed notice(srn, )

Mumford, Sr. et al v. DirectSat USA, LLC

Doc. 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PHILLIP MUMFORD, SR., etc., Plaintiff, v. DIRECTSAT USA, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

10 C 7975

MEMORANDUM ORDER This action has just been removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County to this District Court through the invocation of diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. This memorandum order is

issued sua sponte because the Notice of Removal ("Notice") has left a gap in that respect. With removing defendant DirectSat USA, LLC ("DirectSat") being a limited liability company, Notice ¶4 has properly peeled off the layers of the limited-liability-company onion to focus on the ultimate entity whose citizenship is relevant for diversity purposes: Unitek Acquisition, Inc. ("Unitek").1 But somewhat

inexplicably in light of the care that DirectSat's counsel has exhibited in the peeling-off process, all that Notice ¶4 says about Unitek is that it is "a corporation organized under the

Notice ¶4 identifies Unitek USA, LLC (the limited liability company that is the sole member of DirectSat) as "a wholly owned subsidiary" of Unitek. That is not precisely the same as saying that Unitek is the sole member of that intermediate limited liability company, so the amendment to the Notice that is needed to close the gap referred to in this memorandum order should make that plain.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

laws of the State of Delaware."

That of course is incomplete,

because 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1) also requires the identification of Unitek's principal place of business. Because it would seem likely that Unitek's principal place of business is not sited in Illinois, this Court will not apply any of the directives from our Court of Appeals that call for dismissal where jurisdiction is not properly alleged. Instead

this Court is contemporaneously setting an initial status hearing on the assumption that DirectSat's counsel can cure the indicated omission by that hearing date.

________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: December 20, 2010

2