Carter v. Malone Sports Center, LLC et al

Filing 58

OPINION AND ORDER: In light of the Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants the Plaintiff a final opportunity, up to and including 10/4/19 to establish diversity jurisdiction by identifying the citizenship of the members of Malone Sports Center, LLC as of the date the Complaint was filed in this case. The Plaintiff should be aware that he can request jurisdictional discovery from the Defendant to identify this information. As an alternative to providing responses to jurisdiction al discovery, the Defendant may file a Notice with the Court, by the same 10/4/19 deadline, identifying the citizenship of its members. Otherwise, the Court will direct the Defendant to provide the same to satisfy the Court's inquiry on subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/21/19. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
TORREY CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 4:17-CV-79-TLS-JEM

MALONE SPORTS CENTER, LLC d/b/a
Elite Air; MALONE SPORTS CENTER,
LLC d/b/a Elite Air Trampoline Park;
MALONE SPORTS CENTER, LLC d/b/a
Malone Sports Equipment; MALONE
SPORTS CENTER, LLC d/b/a Elite Air
Newburgh; MALONE SPORTS CENTER,
LLC d/b/a Elite Gymnastics; MALONE
SPORTS CENTER, LLC d/b/a Elite Tennis;
MALONE SPORTS CENTER, LLC d/b/a
Lafayette Elite Tennis Academy; and
MALONE SPORTS CENTER, LLC d/b/a
Elite Tennis Academy,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for a second time on the issue of the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction.
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff Torrey Carter, through counsel, filed a Complaint [ECF
No. 1], alleging that the Court’s original subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Compl. ¶ 1. As of January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff is
proceeding without counsel. On May 1, 2019, the case was reassigned to the undersigned as
presiding judge.
Federal courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction, are duty bound to police their
own jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Johnson v. United States Office
of Pers. Mgmt., 783 F.3d 655, 660 (7th Cir. 2015). The Plaintiff, having filed his Complaint in

this Court, has the burden to establish diversity jurisdiction. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77,
96 (2010). 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).
On June 18, 2019, the Court sua sponte issued an Order [ECF No. 47] finding that,
although the Complaint sufficiently alleges the Plaintiff’s citizenship (Illinois) and that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, the Complaint does not properly allege the
citizenship of Defendant Malone Sports Center, LLC. The Complaint alleges that Malone Sports
Center, LLC, “is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of Indiana
with its principal place of business located in Lafayette, Indiana.” Compl. ¶ 1 (emphasis added).
This allegation is deficient because the Defendant is not a corporation but rather a limited
liability company, which is analogous to a partnership and takes the citizenship of its members.
See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003).
The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement identifying
the citizenship of each of the members of Malone Sport Center, LLC as of October 10, 2017, the
date the Complaint was filed. The Plaintiff timely filed the statement [ECF No. 50] with
supporting documents, but neither the statement nor the documents identify the members or the
citizenship of the members of Malone Sports Center, LLC. The fact that Malone Sports Center,
LLC was organized under the laws of Indiana, has its principal office in Indiana, has a president
with an Indiana mailing address, and has registered agents in Kentucky and Indiana does not
satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. In its response [ECF No. 54] to the Plaintiff’s
supplemental jurisdictional statement, Defendant Malone Sports Center, LLC notes that the
Plaintiff failed to meet his burden and asks the Court to dismiss the lawsuit. The Defendant does
not identify the citizenship of its members or argue that diversity jurisdiction is not met.
2

In light of the Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants the Plaintiff a final opportunity,
up to and including October 4, 2019, to establish diversity jurisdiction by identifying the
citizenship of the members of Malone Sports Center, LLC as of the date the Complaint was filed
in this case. The Plaintiff should be aware that he can request jurisdictional discovery from the
Defendant to identify this information.
As an alternative to providing responses to jurisdictional discovery, the Defendant may
file a Notice with the Court, by the same October 4, 2019 deadline, identifying the citizenship of
its members. Otherwise, the Court will direct the Defendant to provide the same to satisfy the
Court’s inquiry on subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Johnson v. Nat’l Asset Advisors, LLC,
772 F. App’x 328, 328 (7th Cir. 2019) (requiring the defendant/appellee, a limited partnership, to
provide a “complete jurisdictional summary” naming all of its partners and identifying each
partner’s state of citizenship after the pro se plaintiffs/appellants provided an incomplete
jurisdictional statement under Seventh Circuit Rule 28(a)(1)).1
SO ORDERED on August 21, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

Rule 28 of the Seventh Circuit Rules provides:
(a) Appellant's Jurisdictional Statement. The jurisdictional statement in appellant’s brief, see
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4), must contain the following details:
(1) The statement concerning the district court's jurisdiction shall identify the provision of the
constitution or federal statute involved if jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal
question. If jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship, the statement shall identify the
jurisdictional amount and the citizenship of each party to the litigation. If any party is a
corporation, the statement shall identify both the state of incorporation and the state in which the
corporation has its principal place of business. If any party is an unincorporated association or
partnership the statement shall identify the citizenship of all members. The statement shall supply
similar details concerning the invocation of supplemental jurisdiction or other sources of
jurisdiction.
CTA7 Rule 28.

3