Mid-American Salt LLC v. D.J.'s Lawn Service Inc.

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Notice of Removal. Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an amended notice of removal that properly alleges the citizenship of each of the parties on or before August 3, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 7/20/16. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
MID-AMERICAN SALT LLC
)
f/k/a Midwest Salt of Fort Wayne, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
D.J.’S LAWN SERVICE, INC.,
)
d/b/a DJ’s Landscape Management,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CASE NO: 1:16-cv-00280-PPS-SLC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by Defendant, alleging that the Court has
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). In the Notice of Removal,
Defendant alleges that “[u]pon information and belief, each of Plaintiff’s members is a citizen of
the state of Indiana.” (DE 1 ¶ 3).
There are two problems with the Notice of Removal. First, “[a]llegations 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).
Second, 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 name and citizenship of each of the
members of Plaintiff Mid-American Salt, LLC, to ensure that none of the members share a

common citizenship with Defendant. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir.
2006). Such citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for those members of Plaintiff
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). Defendant cannot, as it attempts to do here, simply allege a “naked
declaration that there is diversity of citizenship,” Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531,
533 (7th Cir. 2007), by asserting that “each of Plaintiff’s members is a citizen of the state of
Indiana” and “none of Plaintiff’s members is a citizen of Michigan.” (DE 1 ¶ 3).
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). Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED
to supplement the record by filing an amended notice of removal that properly alleges the
citizenship of each of the parties on or before August 3, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 20th day of July 2016.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

2