CRST Specialized Transportation Inc v. Five Star Logistics LLC

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an amended complaint that properly alleges the citizenship of each of the parties on or before February 11, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 1/28/2016. (rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
CRST SPECIALIZED
TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIVE STAR LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO: 1:16-cv-00034-JTM-SLC

OPINION AND ORDER
On January 27, 2016, Plaintiff CRST Specialized Transportation, Inc., filed a complaint
against Defendant Five Star Logistics, LLC (“FSL”), alleging that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). The complaint recites that Plaintiff is an
Indiana corporation with its primary place of business in Indiana. (DE 1 ¶ 1). It further alleges
“[u]pon information and belief,” that the “members of FSL are not residents or citizens of
Indiana.” (DE 1 ¶ 3).
Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to FSL’s citizenship are inadequate for purposes of
establishing diversity jurisdiction. “Allegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be
made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, No.
Civ. 06-753-GPM, 2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns,
Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); see Ferolie Corp. v.
Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28,
2004).
Furthermore, 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 and citizenship of all of FSL’s
members to ensure that none of the members share a common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin
Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced
through multiple levels” for those members of FSL, who are a partnership or a limited liability
company, as anything less can result in a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment &
Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff cannot, as
it attempts to do here, simply allege a “naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship” by
asserting that “the members of FSL are not residents or citizens of Indiana.” Thomas v.
Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007).
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 by filing an amended complaint that properly alleges the citizenship of
each of the parties on or before February 11, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 28th day of January 2016.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins
United States Magistrate Judge

2