Mattress Warehouse v. Doe et al
OPINION AND ORDER: Dft Google Inc to supplement the record by filing an amended notice of removal on/bf 5/4/2015, that properly alleges the citizenship of Dft American Mattress. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 4/20/2015. (lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JOHN DOE, AMERICAN MATTRESS, )
and GOOGLE, INC.,
CASE NO: 1:15-cv-91
OPINION and ORDER
This case was removed to this Court from the Allen County Superior Court by Defendant
Google, Inc., based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) The
Notice of Removal alleges, among other things, that Defendant American Mattress is a trade
name for American Mattress of Fort Wayne, LLC, which is a “limited-liability corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois” and “has one member, who resides in the
State of Illinois.” (Not. of Removal ¶ 7(b).)
But the Notice of Removal is inadequate because it fails to properly allege the citizenship
of American Mattress. The state in which a limited liability company (“LLC”) is organized is
immaterial for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction; an LLC’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 the identity of each member
of American Mattress of Fort Wayne, LLC, and such member’s citizenship. 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).
Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for those members who
are a partnership or an LLC, as anything less can result in a remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut.
Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). And
residency of an individual 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 5859 (explaining that statements concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of
citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332).
Accordingly, Defendant Google, Inc., is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing
an amended notice of removal on or before May 4, 2015, that properly alleges the citizenship of
Defendant American Mattress.
Enter for this 20th day of April 2015.
/s Susan Collins
United States Magistrate Judge
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?