TSA Properties, LLC v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc.
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff must sufficiently allege its citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to file, on or before 10/28/2020, a supplemental jurisdictional statement that properly alleges its citizenship. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joshua P Kolar on 10/14/20. (ksp)
USDC IN/ND case 2:20-cv-00192-PPS-JPK document 25 filed 10/14/20 page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TSA PROPERTIES, LLC
HISCOX INC. d/b/a HISCOX
INSURANCE COMPANY INC.,
CAUSE NO.: 2:20-CV-192-PPS-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), and
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.
Plaintiff TSA Properties, LLC invoked this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction via diversity
jurisdiction by filing its First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24, ¶ 6). As the party seeking federal
jurisdiction, Plaintiff 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). And when a plaintiff
“voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine
jurisdiction.” Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473-74 (2007); see also
Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., 592 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2010) (“if the plaintiff
amends away jurisdiction in a subsequent pleading, the case must be dismissed”) (citing Rockwell).
For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff and Defendant must
be citizen of different states, and the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Plaintiff has alleged a sufficient amount in controversy, and has sufficiently alleged the
USDC IN/ND case 2:20-cv-00192-PPS-JPK document 25 filed 10/14/20 page 2 of 3
citizenship of Defendant. (ECF No. 24, ¶¶ 4, 6). The allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
are insufficient, however, as to Plaintiff’s own citizenship.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff TSA Properties, LLC “is a limited liability
company organized in the State of Indiana with its principal place of business located in the
Northern District of Indiana.” (ECF No. 24, ¶ 2). However, a limited liability company’s
citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction “is the citizenship of each of its
members.” Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the
“name and citizenship” of each member of a limited liability company “must be identified to
determine diversity jurisdiction.” See Smith v. Dodson, No. 2:17-CV-372, 2019 WL 2526328, at
*1 (N.D. Ind. June 19, 2019) (requiring the name and citizenship of each LLC member to be
identified) (citing Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996)
(requiring “the name and citizenship of each partner” of limited partnership)); see also West v.
Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 951 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2020) (“only the partners’ or members’
citizenships matter,” and “their identities must be revealed”) (citing Guar. Nat’l Title, 101 F.3d at
59). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for members who in turn have
members or partners. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858,
861 (7th Cir. 2004); Thomas, 487 F.3d at 534 (jurisdictional statement for LLC “must identify the
citizenship of each of its members . . . and, if those members have members, the citizenship of
those members as well”). And all such allegations must state the citizenship of each such member
at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. See Rockwell, 549 U.S. at 473-74; Cunningham,
592 F.3d at 807; Thomas, 487 F.3d at 533-34. Plaintiff must therefore identify each member of
TSA Properties, LLC and each such member’s citizenship as of the date the First Amended
Complaint was filed.
USDC IN/ND case 2:20-cv-00192-PPS-JPK document 25 filed 10/14/20 page 3 of 3
Given the importance of determining the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this case, Plaintiff
must sufficiently allege its citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore
ORDERS Plaintiff to FILE, on or before October 28, 2020, a supplemental jurisdictional
statement that properly alleges its citizenship as stated above.
So ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2020.
s/ Joshua P. Kolar
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSHUA P. KOLAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?