Schram et al v. Fidelity National Title Company

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Notice of Removal: Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an amended notice of removal on or before 6/10/2015 that properly alleges the citizenship of the parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 5/29/15. (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
BETH C. SCHRAM and
P. T. SCHRAM,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
COMPANY, LLC, f/k/a Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation,
Defendant.

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

CASE NO: 1:15-cv-131-JTM-SLC

OPINION and ORDER
This case was removed here from the Allen County Superior Court by Defendant based
on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (DE 1). The Notice of Removal
alleges that, among other things, that Plaintiffs “currently reside in Whitley County, Indiana,”
and that Defendant Fidelity National Title Company, LLC, f/k/a Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, “is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Jacksonville,
Florida.” (DE 1 at ¶¶ 4, 5).
The Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate because it fails to properly allege the
citizenship of the parties. As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction,
Defendant 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).
With respect to Plaintiffs, residency of an individual is meaningless for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction; an individual’s citizenship is determined by his or her domicile. Dakuras

1

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. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining
that statements concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of citizenship as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332).
Furthermore, Defendant’s name suggests that it is a limited liability company, not a
corporation. This distinction is important because for purposes of establishing diversity
jurisdiction, a limited liability company’s citizenship is different than that of a corporation.
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).
Therefore, if Defendant is actually a limited liability company, the Court must be advised
of the identity of each of its members, 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., 101 F.3d at 59
(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 a limited liability company, 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).

2

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an amended
notice of removal on or before June 10, 2015, that properly alleges the citizenship of the parties.1
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 29th day of May 2015.
s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

1

“Allegations 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).

3