Schaefer et al v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC
Filing
137
ORDER re: Jurisdictional Briefing, setting 1/3/2014 deadline. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/23/2013. (jls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MATTHEW SCHAEFER and CYNTHIA
SCHAEFER,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNIVERSAL SCAFFOLDING & EQUIP., )
LLC; BRAND ENERGY SERVS., LLC; )
and
DYNEGY
MIDWEST )
GENERATION, LLC;
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, )
)
LLC,
)
)
Cross-Claimant,
)
)
vs.
)
BRAND ENERGY SERVS., LLC; and )
UNIVERSAL SCAFFOLDING & EQUIP., )
)
LLC;
)
)
Cross-Defendants,
Case No. 10–cv–0791–MJR–PMF
ORDER FOR JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING
REAGAN, District Judge:
This case stems from a 2008 injury sustained by Plaintiff Matthew Schaefer when a piece of
scaffolding (allegedly manufactured by Defendant Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC—
“Universal”) struck him during construction work (for contractor and Defendant Brand Energy
Services, LLC—“Brand”) on an Illinois power plant (owned by Defendant Dynegy Midwest
Generation, LLC—“Dynegy”).
Plaintiff (and his wife Cynthia, both of them Illinois citizens)
1
originally sued in state court, naming only Universal in Case No. 10–L–0300 in the Circuit Court for
the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. Universal—a limited liability company with
one member who is a Tennessee citizen—removed the case to this Court in October 2010. (Doc.
2). At the time of removal, it therefore appears, this Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the
case pursuant to the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens
Bank , 474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007) (“For diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship
of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members.”). The case was randomly assigned to the
now-retired District Judge G. Patrick Murphy, upon whose retirement it was reassigned to the
undersigned district judge.
Plaintiffs have filed subsequent amended pleadings 1 naming Dynegy and Brand as
Defendants, and those pleadings (the most recent of which is the Second Amended Complaint,
Doc. 76) leave the Court concerned about whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over these
proceedings. See Thomas v. Guardsmark , 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen one
party the litigation is someone other than a natural person suing in her own capacity, a
jurisdictional warning flag should go up”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
According to the Second Amended Complaint, “Brand Energy Services, LLC … is a corporation in
good standing organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in
Kennesaw, Georgia.” (Doc. 76, 2). That may be, but Brand’s “LLC” designation indicates it is a
limited liability corporation, whose citizenship (as mentioned above) hinges on the citizenship of its
members—none of whom Plaintiffs mention in the Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs’ description of Dynegy suffers from a similar shortfall—the Second Amended
Complaint simply names Dynegy a “company” despite its LLC designation, and makes no mention
of its members. More disconcertingly, Plaintiffs allege Dynegy “is based in Tilton, Illinois,” and as a
Universal did not object to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint so as to add Defendants Dynegy and
Brand.
1
2
general proposition a district court “may not permit joinder of a nondiverse defendant and retain
jurisdiction.”
Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc. , 577 F.3d 752, 759 (7th Cir. 2009)
(emphasis in original).
Given the inadequacy of the Second Amended Complaint to convince the undersigned that
subject matter jurisdiction attaches, each party is DIRECTED to file a jurisdictional memoranda—
not to exceed three pages—on or before January 3, 2014. The parties are free to file a lengthier joint
memorandum should they, upon meeting and conferring, find that their positions on the matter are
identical.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge
DATE: December 23, 2013
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?