Shakti Management, LLC v. Harleysville Lake States Insurance Company

Filing 7

ORDER Signed by the Honorable John F. Grady on April 3, 2013. Mailed notice(cdh, )

13-2098.131-JCD

April 3, 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAKTI MANAGEMENT, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
HARLEYSVILLE LAKE STATES
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

No. 13 C 2098

ORDER
This

is

an

action

for

breach

of

an

insurance

policy,

declaratory relief, and vexatious and unreasonable delay that was
originally filed in DuPage County, Illinois.
by

defendant

Harleysville

Lake

The case was removed

States

Insurance

Company

(“Harleysville”) to this court.
Harleysville’s notice of removal of the action, which asserts
diversity jurisdiction, is defective in two respects.

First, it

alleges that plaintiff, Shakti Management, LLC (“Shakti”), is a
“corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Illinois.”

(Notice ¶ 3.)

This allegation contradicts plaintiff’s

business name as well as paragraph 1 of the complaint, in which
Shakti alleges that it is a limited liability company.

The

citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of every state of which
any member is a citizen, so the notice of removal must identify all
of

Shakti’s

members

and

their

citizenship

(citizenship--not

- 2 -

residence; the two are not synonymous).

See Camico Mut. Ins. Co.

v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007); Belleville
Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 69293 (7th Cir. 2003).
The second problem is with Harleysville’s allegation of its
own citizenship.

It states simply: “Defendant Harleysville was

organized under the laws of the State of Michigan and has its
principal

place

(Notice ¶ 4.)

of

business

in

Harleysville,

Pennsylvania.”

This would be a proper allegation of citizenship if

Harleysville were a corporation and it indicated under which
state’s (or states’) laws Harleysville is organized and has its
principal place of business.
entity defendant is.

But we cannot tell what kind of

Because unincorporated business entities are

treated as citizens of every jurisdiction in which any equity
investor or member is a citizen, see Indiana Gas Co. v. Home
Insurance Co., 141 F.3d 314, 316 (7th Cir. 1998), the requisite
citizenship allegations would be different, and defendant would
have to set out its members and their citizenships.
Defendant is given until April 17, 2013 to file an amended
notice of removal that properly alleges the parties’ citizenships.
An initial status hearing is set for May 1, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.

- 3 -

DATE:

April 3, 2013

ENTER:

_________________________________________________
John F. Grady, United States District Judge