Staples v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Complaint. Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before June 11, 2015, by filing an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of each party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 5/28/15. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
BROOKE STAPLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
BAYER PHARMA AG, and
BAYER OY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-127-JVB-SLC

OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff Brooke Staples filed a complaint against Defendants on May 21, 2015, alleging
that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). The complaint
recites that Plaintiff is a citizen of Indiana and that Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. (DE 1 at ¶¶ 1,
2). The complaint further alleges that “[u]pon information and belief,” Defendant Bayer Pharma
AG is “a global pharmaceutical corporation organized under the laws of Germany.” (DE 1 at ¶
6). Finally, the complaint recites that “[u]pon information and belief, Defendant Bayer Oy is
organized and exists under the laws of Finland and is headquartered at . . . Finland.” (DE 1 at ¶
12).
These jurisdictional allegations are inadequate with respect to Defendants Bayer Pharma
AG and Bayer Oy. To begin, “[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be
made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, 472
F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057 n.1 (S.D. Ill. 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. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor
World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003).
Furthermore, as to Bayer Pharma AG, “a foreign or alien corporation[] is treated the
same as a domestic corporation for diversity purposes, and is considered a citizen both of its
country of incorporation and the state or foreign country in which its principal place of business
is located.” Ashenden v. Lloyd’s of London, 934 F. Supp. 992, 999 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (citing Rouhi
v. Harza Eng’g Co., 785 F. Supp. 1290, 1292 (N.D. Ill. 1992)); see also MAS Capital, Inc. v.
Biodelivery Scis. Int’l, Inc., 524 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2008); Bou-Matic, LLC v. R.J. Fullwood
& Bland, Ltd., No. 08-cv-441, 2008 WL 4691831, at *1-2 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 22, 2008). Here,
however, the complaint fails to allege the location of Bayer Pharma AG’s principal place of
business.
Finally, the complaint does not allege Bayer Oy’s organizational form. This information
is important because for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a
corporation is different from that of a limited liability company or partnership. Corporations
“are deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and the state in which they
have their principal place of business.” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir.
1990) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). Conversely, 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), and “both general and limited partnerships are citizens of
every jurisdiction of which any partner is a citizen,” Ind. Gas Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 141 F.3d
314, 316 (7th Cir. 1998).
Therefore, if Bayer Oy is a limited liability company or partnership, the Court must be

2

advised of the identity of each of its members or partners, and such member’s or partner’s
citizenship. See 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 or
partners who are a limited liability company or partnership, as anything less can result in a
dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indemnification Co. v. Lind-Waldock &
Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004).
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). Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to
supplement the record on or before June 11, 2015, by filing an amended complaint that
adequately alleges the citizenship of each party.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 28th day of May, 2015.
s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

3