Zuffa, LLC v. Patel et al

Filing 16

ORDER RE 13 Motion for Default Judgment as to ASHWIN PATEL, MITA PATEL, and HEARTLAND LIQUORS INC., filed by Zuffa, LLC: As thoroughly explained in the attached Order, the undersigned District Judge hereby SETS two deadlines: First, on or before Se pt. 15, 2011, Plaintiff's counsel must file a memorandum furnishing information as to the identity/citzenship of each member of Zuffa, LLC and file a proof of service verifying that the default judgment motion (Doc. 13) and this Order were provi ded to Defendants (see Order for details). Second, on or before September 23, 2011, Defendants must file any response or objection to the default judgment motion (Doc. 13). (Action due by 9/15/11 and by 9/23/2011.)Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/29/11. (soh )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ZUFFA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASHWIN PATEL,
MITA PATEL, and
HEARTLAND LIQUORS, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-0491-MJR-SCW

ORDER ON THRESHOLD REVIEW
REAGAN, District Judge:
This case comes before the undersigned Judge for threshold jurisdictional
review, the initial task in every newly-filed or newly-removed case. See Johnson v.
Wattenbarger, 361 F.3d 991, 992 (7th Cir. 2004)(“All too often both litigants and
judges disregard their first duty in every suit:

to determine the existence of

subject-matter jurisdiction.”). Zuffa, LLC filed suit in this Court on June 10, 2011
against three Defendants -- two individuals (Ashwin Patel and Mita Patel) plus a
business entity (Heartland Liquors, Inc., doing business as “Heartland Liquors” and also
known as “Heartland Liquors and Sports Bar”).

The complaint’s jurisdictional

allegations leave room for improvement.
The Court is not told whether Defendant Heartland is a corporation, a
partnership, or a sole proprietorship. Indeed, the complaint alleges in sequential
paragraphs (¶¶ 13-15) “upon information and belief,” that Heartland is all three.1

1

Subject matter jurisdiction does not rest on diversity of citizenship, so the Court
need not cross this bridge, but Plaintiff’s counsel is advised that a question exists as to
whether jurisdictional allegations based on “information and belief” (as opposed to

1

The complaint further states that Heartland’s “principal place of business”
is 800 One Mile Road, Thomson, Illinois (which lies within the Northern District of
Illinois) and that Defendants unlawfully intercepted a satellite signal for an Ultimate
Fighting Championship broadcast on December 11, 2010 and exhibited it “at the above
address” (Doc. 2, p. 5). This indicates the sports bar or establishment in which the
broadcast was shown is located in the Northern District of Illinois, directly contradicting
other information filed by Plaintiff indicating that this occurred at 1802 Bittle Place in
Marion, Illinois, within the Southern District of Illinois (Doc. 13-1, p. 3).
More troublingly, Plaintiff (an LLC) pleads its own jurisdictional information
as if it were a corporation, identifying its principal place of business in Las Vegas,
Nevada instead of supplying the citizenship of each member of the LLC, the relevant
and necessary inquiry in this Circuit for jurisdictional purposes. See, e.g., Thomas v.
Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007), Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007).
Despite the multiple references to principal places of business, the
complaint alleges violations of federal copyright law, so subject matter jurisdiction is
invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a), and the elements of diversity jurisdiction
need not be satisfied. However, the Court needs to know the proper identity of each
party, including each member of the Plaintiff LLC (Zuffa), to assess any potential
conflicts of interest. For this reason, the Court (in this Order, below) directs Plaintiff’s
counsel to promptly supply that information.

personal knowledge) suffice. See, e.g., America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of
Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992); Lyerla v. AMCO Ins. Co., 462
F.Supp.2d 931 (S.D. Ill. 2006).

2

All three Defendants were served on July 1, 2011 (see Docs. 6-8). None
of them responded to the complaint within the time permitted by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12. Plaintiff secured a clerk's entry of default under Rule 55(a) as to all three
Defendants on August 18, 2011.

Now Plaintiff moves under Rule 55(b) for default

judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally.
The pleadings reflect some confusion as to the specific amount of the
requested judgment. Several supporting documents indicate that the requested amount
(per each Defendant) is $32,618.75, but Plaintiff’s motion itself (Doc. 13) repeatedly
requests judgment (per each Defendant) in the amount of $32,190.25. In contravention
of this Court’s CM/ECF User’s Manual, Section 2.10 “Submitting a Proposed
Document,” counsel attached to the default judgment motion a proposed order of
default judgment (Exhibit 8 to Doc. 13). This is a common mistake, and rather than
strike it, the Court simply DIRECTS Plaintiff’s counsel to properly submit the proposed
Order of Default Judgment to the undersigned Judge in accord with Section 2.10 of the
User’s Manual (using the proper email address – [e-mail]).
The certificate of service attached to the motion indicates that Plaintiff
served the motion and all supporting exhibits/affidavits on the three Defendants at
Marion, Illinois addresses (see Doc. 13-9, pp. 1-2).

The Court hereby SETS A

DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANY RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION (Doc. 13) -- September 23, 2011.
The Court also imposes a September 15, 2011 deadline for Plaintiff’s
counsel to: (a) file a “Memorandum in Response to Court Order” which furnishes the
identity and citizenship of each member of Zuffa LLC, so that the undersigned Judge

3

can ascertain that he has no conflict of interest as to this lawsuit, and (b) file a “Proof of
Service” attesting that Plaintiff’s counsel furnished a copy of this Order (setting the
September 23rd response deadline) to each of the three named Defendants (including
the address at which and means by which each Defendant was served with this Order).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED August 29, 2011.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

4