Leal v. TSA Stores Inc et al

Filing 178

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS Defendant TSA Stores, Inc. to FILE a supplemental jurisdictional statement as to its citizenship on or before 8/8/2019, at 11:00 am (CST) or be prepared to address the issue at the scheduled status conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joshua P Kolar on 8/1/2019. (jss)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
MICHELLE LEAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TSA STORES, INC. d/b/a THE SPORTS
AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CV-318-JPK

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court must continuously police its subject
matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002). The
Court must dismiss this action if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Currently, the Court is unable to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction over this
litigation.
A previous defendant in this litigation, East Coast Cycle Supply, Inc. invoked this Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction via diversity jurisdiction by filing a Notice of Removal to federal court.
The party seeking federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction
exists. Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009). Here,
though, that defendant was granted summary judgment in its favor. The Court will turn to the
remaining defendant to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff Michelle Leal and Defendant TSA
Stores, Inc. must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must be more than
$75,000. In the Notice of Removal, Plaintiff’s citizenship and the amount in controversy are
properly alleged.

However, the Notice of Removal alleges that Defendant TSA Stores, Inc. is a “Colorado
corporation.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 4, ECF No. 3). This allegation is insufficient for the purpose
of determining citizenship. 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) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). The Seventh
Circuit has further held that, “in cases with corporate parties, it is necessary to allege both the state
of incorporation and the state of the principal place of business, even if they are one and the same.”
Karazanos v. Madison Two Assocs., 147 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal citation omitted).
While it is likely known to the parties, the record before the Court does not reveal whether TSA
Stores, Inc. was, at the time of removal, a “Colorado corporation” because it was incorporated
there, had its principal place of business there, both, or something else entirely.
Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendant TSA Stores, Inc. to FILE a
supplemental jurisdictional statement as to its citizenship on or before August 8, 2019, at
11:00 a.m. (C.S.T.) or to be prepared to address the issue at the scheduled status conference.
So ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2019.
s/ Joshua P. Kolar
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSHUA P. KOLAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2