Chapel Ridge Investments LLC v. Petland Leaseholding Company Inc et al

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER re 7 SECOND Amended Notice of Removal by Defendants Petland Inc, Petland Leaseholding Company Inc. Defendants ORDERED to file by 6/17/2013 a Second Amended Notice of Removal as outlined in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/3/13. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
CHAPEL RIDGE INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PETLAND LEASEHOLDING COMPANY,
INC., an Ohio corporation; THE UNKNOWN
OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND
SHAREHOLDERS OF PETLAND LEASING
COMPANY, INC.; and PETLAND, INC., an
Ohio corporation;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-146

OPINION AND ORDER
This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendants based
on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2, 7.) Along with Petland
Leaseholding Company, Inc. (“PLC”), and Petland, Inc., PLC’s unknown officers, directors, and
shareholders are also Defendants in this case. “But because the existence of diversity
jurisdiction cannot be determined without knowledge of every defendant’s place of citizenship,
‘John Doe’ defendants are not permitted in federal diversity suits.” Howell ex rel. Goerdt v.
Tribune Entm’t Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Defendants appear to
be aware of this, stating in their Amended Notice of Removal that “PLC represents to the Court
that none of its officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of the State of Indiana.” (Am.
Notice of Removal ¶ 4(d).)
Defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate because Plaintiff
Chapel Ridge Investments, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, is a citizen of
1

California, not Indiana, as its sole member, Johann Lippert, is a California citizen. (Am. Notice
of Removal ¶ 6(a)(ii)); see Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he
citizenship of an LLC for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its
members.”). As such, whether any of PLC’s officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of
Indiana is irrelevant to the jurisdictional analysis. Instead, the Court must be advised of whether
any of them are California citizens.
Consequently, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record by filing a Second
Amended Notice of Removal on or before June 17, 2013, informing the Court of whether any of
PLC’s officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of California.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 3rd day of June, 2013.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

2