Hydraulic Performance Machines SRL v. Hercules Machinery Corporation

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Complaint: Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before 6/16/2015 by filing an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of each party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 6/2/15. (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE
MACHINES SRL,
Plaintiff,
v.
HERCULES MACHINERY
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-138-RL-SLC

OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff Hydraulic Performance Machines SRL filed a complaint against Defendant
Hercules Machinery Corporation on June 1, 2015, alleging that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). The complaint recites that Plaintiff is an
Italian limited liability company and that “[u]pon information and belief,” Defendant is an
Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. (DE 1 at ¶¶ 1, 2).
These jurisdictional allegations are inadequate. 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).
With respect to Defendant, “[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).

As to Plaintiff, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a limited liability
company is the citizenship of each of its members. See Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d
531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). Therefore , Plaintiff “must allege facts detailing the citizenship of each
of its members[.]” Bou-Matic, LLC v. R.J. Fullwood & Blanc, Ltd., No. 08-cv-441-bbc, 2008
WL 4691831, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 22, 2008) (directing plaintiff to allege the identity and
citizenship of each of the members of a British limited liability company); see also Principle
Solutions, LLC v. Feed.ing BV, No. 13-C-223, 2013 WL 2458630, at *2 (E.D. Wis. June 5, 2013)
(addressing the citizenship of a Dutch limited liability company). Citizenship must be “traced
through multiple levels” for those members who are a limited liability company or partnership,
as anything less can result in a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.1 Mut. Assignment &
Indemnification Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004).
“Although it may be unlikely that [a] foreign . . . limited liability company would have
citizenship overlapping [D]efendant’s, the possibility remains, and it would be a waste of limited
judicial resources to proceed further in a case in which jurisdiction may not be present.” BouMatic, LLC, 2008 WL 4691831, at *2. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the
record on or before June 16, 2015, by filing an amended complaint that adequately alleges the

1

Plaintiff is reminded that to the extent any of its members is an individual person, “it is the citizenship, not
the residency, of individual persons that matters for diversity jurisdiction.” Bou-Matic, LLC, 2008 WL 4691831, at
*2. “An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled, that is, where he has a permanent home and
principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” Id.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2

citizenship of each party.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 2nd day of June, 2015.
s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

3