Omnisource Electronics Recycling, LLC v. PC Rebuilders and Recyclers, LLC

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement on or before 2/21/2017, that advises the Court of the information requested herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 2/7/2017. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
OMNISOURCE ELECTRONICS
RECYCLING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
PC REBUILDERS AND RECYCLERS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 1:17-cv-00027-TLS-SLC
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Omnisource
Electronics Recycling, LLC, on February 6, 2017, alleging that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 9). Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations,
however, still fail to adequately set forth the citizenship of the parties.
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). 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).
Plaintiff states that it “is wholly-owned by STLD Holdings, Inc., a citizen of Indiana.”
(DE 9 ¶ 1). Plaintiff 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 STLD Holdings, Inc., is a citizen of Indiana. 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)

(emphasis added) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). Therefore, the Court must be advised of
STLD Holdings, Inc.’s state of incorporation and the state in which its principal place of
business is located.
As an additional matter, Plaintiff alleges that it is “an Indiana company” and that
Defendant “is an Illinois company.” (DE 9 ¶¶ 1, 3). The complaint does not state, however, that
these companies are actually limited liability companies, though the Court has presumed so from
their names. Therefore, Plaintiff should confirm to the Court that Plaintiff and Defendant are, in
fact, limited liability companies.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to filed a supplemental jurisdictional statement on or before
February 21, 2017, that advises the Court of the information requested herein.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 7th day of February 2017.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

2