TRAMMEL v. PFIZER INC.

Filing 14

ORDER To File Joint Jurisdictional Statement - Because the Court cannot assure itself that it has jurisdiction over this matter, it ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding the Court's jurisdiction over this putative class action. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint jurisdictional statement by May 7, 2012, or competing jurisdictional statements by that date if they cannot agree. This jurisdictional statement relieves Ms. Trammel's obligation to file a response to Pfizer's notice of removal pursuant to Local Rule 81-1. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/24/2012. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PAULA TRAMMEL, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PFIZER INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-0501-JMS-MJD

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
On April 17, 2012, Defendant Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”), removed this putative class action to
this Court, asserting that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
[Dkt. 1 at 2-3.] In its removal papers, Pfizer alleged that the putative class is greater than 100,
diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiff Paula Trammel and Pfizer, and the amount in
controversy for the class members exceeds $5,000,000. [Id. at 2-4.]
On April 23, 2012, Pfizer answered Ms. Trammel’s Complaint and denied knowledge of
some of the jurisdictional assertions it made in its removal papers. For example, Pfizer now denies knowledge of Ms. Trammel’s residence1 and denies knowledge of the value of the individual claims at issue. [Dkt. 12 at 2.]
The Court is not being hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze
subject-matter jurisdiction, Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th 2012), and a
1

Ms. Trammel alleged her residence in her state court Complaint, not her citizenship. [Dkt. 1-1
at 3.] While residence and citizenship are not the same and an individual’s citizenship is what
matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299
F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002), the Court did not issue a show cause order in response to Pfizer’s
removal papers asserting Ms. Trammel’s citizenship because Local Rule 81-1 required Ms.
Trammel to respond to Pfizer’s allegations within 30 days of the notice of removal. Given the
inconsistency between the allegations in Pfizer’s removal papers and its Answer, however, the
Court finds it necessary for the parties to meet and confer in advance of the Local Rule 81-1
deadline.
-1-

federal court always has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan
Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009).
Because the Court cannot assure itself that it has jurisdiction over this matter, it ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding the Court’s jurisdiction over this putative class
action. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint jurisdictional statement by May 7, 2012, or
competing jurisdictional statements by that date if they cannot agree. This jurisdictional statement relieves Ms. Trammel’s obligation to file a response to Pfizer’s notice of removal pursuant
to Local Rule 81-1.
04/24/2012
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
P. Gregory Cross
THE CROSS LAW FIRM
[e-mail]
Brett E. Nelson
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
George M. Plews
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
[e-mail]
Danyel Nicole Robbins
THE CROSS LAW FIRM, P.C.
315 E. Charles St.
Muncie, IN 47305

-2-