Melton v. Gary Indiana City of, et al
Filing
158
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS the Plaintiff to FILE, on or before, September 20, 2019, a supplemental jurisdictional statement identifying: (1) the citizenship on February 28, 2017, the date the Complaint was filed, of (a) the Plaintiff, (b) A ngenette C. Earls, (c) PK Management, LLC, (d) NSA III Associates, LLC, (e) Maxwell's Glass, and (f) the Neal Company, Inc.; (2) the citizenship on April 20, 2017, the date of the First Amended Complaint, of NSA Limited Partnership; (3) the cit izenship on June 5, 2017, the date of the Second Amended Complaint, of Associated Materials, Inc.; and (4) the citizenship on July 20, 2017, the date of the Third Amended Complaint, of Residential Management Company, LLC. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/28/19. (ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
GIA MELTON, individually and as mother
and next friend G.R., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-93-TLS-JPK
ANGENETTE C. EARLS; PK
MANAGEMENT, LLC; NSA III
ASSOCIATES LLC a/k/a and/or d/b/a Gary
NSA III; THE NEAL COPMANY INC. a/k/a
and/or d/b/a Window World; NSA III
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, INC.
Defendants.
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).
Despite invoking this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332, the Plaintiff has not made any citizenship allegations in any of her pleadings.
The Plaintiff filed her original Complaint on February 28, 2017 [ECF No. 1] against
Defendants City of Gary, City of Gary Housing Authority, Angenette C. Earls, PK Management,
LLC, Gary NSA III, Maxwell’s Glass, and Window World. The Complaint alleges that “[t]his
Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims raised in this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Code
§ 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs.” Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1. The
Complaint alleged that the Plaintiff “resides” in Illinois. Id. at 1. The Complaint did not allege
the citizenship of the Plaintiff or any of the Defendants.
The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 1, 2017 [ECF No. 3] for the purpose
of replacing the name of the minor with the minor’s initials throughout. No citizenship
allegations were included.
On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 28] (1) to
properly name Gary NSA III as NSA III Associates, LLC, (2) to properly name Window World
as The Neal Company, Inc., and (3) to add Defendant NSA III Limited Partnership. The Plaintiff
again alleged jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 10. No citizenship allegations
were included.
On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint to add Defendant
Associated Materials, Inc. [ECF No. 52]. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff refiled the Second
Amended Complaint [ECF No. 54]. Both Second Amended Complaints again alleged
jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 12. No citizenship allegations were included.
On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint to add Defendant
Residential Management Company, LLC [ECF No. 80]. The Plaintiff again alleged jurisdiction
based on diversity jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 13. No citizenship allegations were included.
On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, dropping
Defendants City of Gary, City of Gary Housing Authority, Maxwell’s Glass, and Residential
Management Company, LLC [ECF No. 131]. The Plaintiff continues to allege jurisdiction based
on diversity jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 9. No citizenship allegations were included.
Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties to an action on each side are citizens of
different states, with no defendant a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Diversity jurisdiction must be
established at the time the Complaint is filed, but the Court can later be divested of jurisdiction if
an amended complaint adds a non-diverse party. See Estate of Alvarez v. Donaldson Co., Inc.,
2
213 F.3d 993, 994–95 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that diversity jurisdiction established at the time
the complaint is filed can be divested by the subsequent addition of nondiverse, indispensable
parties in an amended complaint); Costain Coal Holdings, Inc. v. Res. Inv. Corp., 15 F.3d 733,
734–35 (7th Cir. 1994). As the party seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, the Plaintiff
bears the burden of demonstrating that the jurisdictional requirements have been met. Hertz
Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010); Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562
F.3d 798, 802–03 (7th Cir. 2009). A failure to meet that burden can result in a dismissal. See
Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004).
In this case, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
However, the Plaintiff has not made any allegations as to her own citizenship or that of the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff and Defendant Angenette C. Earls are individuals. Citizenship of a natural
person is determined by domicile, not by residence. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th
Cir. 2002); see also Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012)
(“[R]esidence 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.”); Guar. Nat’l Title Co., Inc. 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 U.S.C. ' 1332).
Defendants The Neal Company, Inc. and Associates Materials, Inc. are corporations. A
corporation is a citizen of every state and foreign state in which it has been incorporated and the
state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see
also Hertz Corp., 559 U.S. at 92–93 (holding that the term “principal place of business” refers to
the corporation’s “nerve center,” that is, the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control,
and coordinate the corporation’s activities).
3
Defendants PK Management, LLC, NSA III Associates, LLC, and Residential
Management Company, LLC are limited liability companies, and Defendant NSA III Limited
Partnership is a limited partnership. Both a limited liability company and a partnership take the
citizenship of its members. Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. Place, LLC, 350 F.3d
691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003). If the members of the limited liability company or partnership are
themselves limited liability companies or partnerships, the Plaintiff must also plead the
citizenship of those members as of the date the Complaint was filed. See Thomas v. Guardsmark,
LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007).
It is unclear from the allegations of the pleadings whether Defendant Maxwell’s Glass
a/k/a and/or d/b/a Next Level Glass is a corporation, a limited liability company, a partnership, or
other some other business entity. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff must identify the form of business
entity that Maxwell’s Glass has taken and properly allege its citizenship.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiff to FILE, on or before, September 20, 2019,
a supplemental jurisdictional statement identifying: (1) the citizenship on February 28, 2017, the
date the Complaint was filed, of (a) the Plaintiff, (b) Angenette C. Earls, (c) PK Management,
LLC, (d) NSA III Associates, LLC, (e) Maxwell’s Glass, and (f) the Neal Company, Inc.; (2) the
citizenship on April 20, 2017, the date of the First Amended Complaint, of NSA Limited
Partnership; (3) the citizenship on June 5, 2017, the date of the Second Amended Complaint, of
Associated Materials, Inc.; and (4) the citizenship on July 20, 2017, the date of the Third
Amended Complaint, of Residential Management Company, LLC.
SO ORDERED on August 28, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?