General Electric Capital Corporation v. General Investment, L.L.C.

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before 7/22/2014, by filing an Amended Complaint as outlined in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 7/8/2014. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL INVESTMENT, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-203

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff General Electric Capital Corporation filed its complaint against Defendant
General Investment, LLC, on July 7, 2014, alleging that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Docket # 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff, which alleges it is a
Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Connecticut, states that it is
“informed and believes that all of the members of the Defendant are residents of Indiana or
Michigan, and that none are residents or citizens of Delaware or Connecticut.” (Compl. ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations, however, inadequately set forth the citizenship of
Defendant.
As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of
demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop ‘N Save
Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff cannot, as it attempts to do
here, merely allege a “naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship” in its complaint.
Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007).
A limited liability company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the
citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998).

Therefore, the Court must be advised of each member of Defendant General Investment, LLC,
and such member’s citizenship (“traced through multiple levels” of ownership if such member is
an unincorporated association, partnership, or limited liability company, Mut. Assignment &
Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)), to ensure that none
of the members share a common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439
F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006); see generally Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57,
59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that the court would “need to know the name and citizenship(s)”
of each partner for diversity jurisdiction purposes).
And if, as the complaint suggests, Defendant’s members are natural persons, residency is
meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; an individual’s citizenship is determined by
his or her domicile. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see Heinen v.
Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence may or may not
demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile–that is to say, the state in which a person
intends to live over the long run.”); Guar. Nat’l Title Co., 101 F.3d at 58-59 (explaining that
statements concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of citizenship as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1332). Therefore, to determine citizenship, the Court must be advised of each
individual member’s domicile, rather than his or her residence.
Furthermore, it is well-settled that “[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction
may not be made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v.
Shashek, No. Civ. 06-753-GPM, 2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing
Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); Ferolie
Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct.

2

28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2
(N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003); Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152
(N.D. Ill. 1992). Consequently, Plaintiff must amend its complaint to allege Defendant’s
citizenship on the basis of personal knowledge rather than belief.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before July 22, 2014,
by filing an Amended Complaint reciting the parties’ citizenship on the basis of personal
knowledge, and properly alleging the identity and citizenship of each member of Defendant,
tracing citizenship through all applicable layers of ownership.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 8th day of July, 2014.
s/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

3