MELINDA & MARSHA, LLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 6

ORDER - After having reviewed the pleadings, the present record does not establish that complete diversity exists between the parties, as is required.(SEE ORDER). The Court therefore ORDERS the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement that se ts forth their respective citizenships no later than Friday, August 26, 2011. The jurisdictional statement shall list each member of Plaintiff Melina & Marsha, LLC, and trace the citizenship each members. Additionally, Plaintiff should indicate its p osition regarding Defendant's citizenship allegations. If the parties cannot agree, they shall file separate reports within that time setting forth their respective views of the citizenships of the parties. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/19/2011.(JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MELINDA & MARSHA, LLC, d/b/a
KIDZ & CO.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1128-JMS-DML

ORDER
On August 17, 2011, Defendant The Cincinnati Insurance Company removed Plaintiff
Melina & Marsha, LLC, d/b/a Kidz & Co.’s breach of contract action to this Court from the
Jackson County Circuit Court. [Dkt. 1.] Defendant did so, alleging that this Court can properly
exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. [Id. at ¶ 8.]
Although Plaintiff has not contested jurisdiction, the Court has an independent duty to
ensure that it has jurisdiction over all actions pending before it.

See, e.g., Thomas v.

Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). After having reviewed the pleadings, the
present record does not establish that complete diversity exists between the parties, as is required
by § 1332.
First, with respect to Plaintiff’s citizenship, Defendant alleges, “The Plaintiff . . . is a
citizen of the State of Indiana, being a resident, and, thus, presumptively a domiciliary of
Indiana.” [Id. at ¶ 2.] Plaintiff’s state-court complaint alleges, “Plaintiff [is] a limited liability
company authorized to conduct business in the State of Indiana with a business address located
[in] Indiana.” [Dkt. 1-2 at 1.]

Because Plaintiff is a limited liability company, it has “the citizenship of each of its
members.” Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted). Its state of organization and principal place of business are irrelevant. Furthermore,
when pleading the citizenship of an LLC’s members, counsel should be mindful that residency is
likewise irrelevant. Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir.
2002) (“[R]esidence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)).
Second, with respect to Defendant’s citizenship, Defendant’s notice of removal asserts
that it is organized under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in that state. [Dkt.
1 at ¶ 4.] If so, it is a citizen of Ohio. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). But because Plaintiff’s statecourt complaint merely asserts that Defendant is “an Ohio corporation authorized to transact
business in the State of Indiana,” it is unclear whether Plaintiff agrees with Defendant’s
allegations regarding its citizenship. [Dkt. 1-2 at ¶ 3.]
The Court therefore ORDERS the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement that sets
forth their respective citizenships no later than Friday, August 26, 2011. The jurisdictional
statement shall list each member of Plaintiff Melina & Marsha, LLC, and trace the citizenship
each members.

Additionally, Plaintiff should indicate its position regarding Defendant’s

citizenship allegations. If the parties cannot agree, they shall file separate reports within that
time setting forth their respective views of the citizenships of the parties.

08/19/2011

Distribution via ECF only:

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Michael E. Brown
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
Michael L. Schultz
PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP
[e-mail]