Burk v. Trading Place, LLC
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs are afforded up to and including 8/12/2015, to file an amended complaint that properly articulates the citizenship of each party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 7/28/2015. (lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
GERALD BURK, individually and as
attorney-in-fact for wife, and
PATRICIA CORRIGAN-BURK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TRADING PLACE, LLC, d/b/a
Farmstead Inn,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:15-cv-00191-JTM-SLC
OPINION AND ORDER
This case was filed by Plaintiffs in the district court based on diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (DE 1). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Gerald Burk is a
“resident” of Illinois and that Defendant Trading Place, LLC, “is an Indiana Limited Liability
Company and none of its members are residents of Illinois.” (DE 1 ¶¶ 4, 6). The complaint is
silent as to Plaintiff Patricia Corrigan-Burk’s citizenship.
Plaintiffs’ complaint is inadequate with respect to diversity jurisdiction. First, it fails to
allege Patricia Corrigan-Burk’s citizenship. Second, as to Gerald Burk, “residency” of a plaintiff
is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as “citizenship is what matters.”1 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
1
For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, each party’s citizenship must be articulated as of “the
time of the filing of the complaint,” rather than the date the claims are alleged to have arisen or some other time
material to the lawsuit. Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
U.S.C. § 1332). “It is well-settled that ‘[w]hen the parties allege residence but not citizenship,
the court must dismiss the suit.’” Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998) (alteration in
original) (quoting Guar. Nat’l Title Co., 101 F.3d at 58); see generally Smoot v. Mazda Motors
of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2006).
“For natural persons, state citizenship is determined by one’s domicile.” Dausch v.
Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see also 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.”); Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)
(“In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). Therefore, the Court must be
advised of both Plaintiffs’ citizenship, not residency.
As to Defendant Trading Place, LLC, 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 the identity of each
member of Defendant Trading Place, 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., 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).
For this reason, Plaintiffs are afforded up to and including August 12, 2015, to file an
2
amended complaint that properly articulates the citizenship of each party.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 28th day of July 2015.
S/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?