SOCIETY INSURANCE v. NICK'S ENGLISH HUT, INC. et al

Filing 18

ORDER To File Joint Jurisdictional Statement - The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, and conduct whatever investigation necessary, to determine whether this Court has diversity jurisdiction. If the parties agree that diversity jurisdic tion is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by October 15, 2012 setting forth the parties' citizenship and a statement regarding the amount in controversy. If the parties cannot agree on any jurisdictional requirement, they are ordered to file competing jurisdictional statements by October 15, 2012 setting forth their positions. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/28/2012. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SOCIETY INSURANCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NICK’S ENGLISH HUT, INC. and JON PIKE, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-01164-JMS-DML

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Plaintiff Society Insurance (“Society”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Nick’s English Hut, Inc. (“Nick’s”) and Jon Pike.1 [Dkt. 1.] In the Complaint, Society alleged that this
Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because: (1) Society is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin, [id. at 2, ¶ 4]; (2) Nick’s is an Indiana
corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana, [id. at 2, ¶ 5]; (3) Mr. Pike is a citizen
of Indiana, [id. at 2, ¶ 7]; and (4) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, [id. at 2, ¶ 8].
In his Answer, [dkt. 16], Mr. Pike states that he lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or
deny whether Society is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin and therefore denies that allegation, [id. at 1, ¶ 4]. Mr. Pike also states that he lacks
knowledge sufficient to admit or deny whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
therefore denies that allegation. [Id. at 2, ¶ 8.] Nick’s has not yet answered the Complaint.
The Court must independently determine whether proper diversity among the parties exists. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). The Court is not being
1

Society actually sues Mr. Pike individually and all others similarly situated and part of any
class certified in Cause No. 1:11-cv-1304-WTL-MJD, a putative class action which is the subject
of Society’s request for declaratory judgment here. No class has been certified in that case, and
the citizenships of the members of a yet-to-be-certified class are not relevant for purposes of our
jurisdictional analysis here.
-1-

hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze subject matter jurisdiction,
Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012), and a 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). Based on Society’s Complaint and Mr. Pike’s Answer, and specifically Mr.
Pike’s denial of allegations relating to Society’s citizenship and the lack of any information regarding whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, the
Court cannot determine whether it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case.
Specifically, the parties are reminded that: (1) jurisdictional allegations must be made on
personal knowledge, not on information and belief, to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of a
federal court, America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th
Cir. 1992); (2) it is insufficient for a party to generically allege that another party is not a citizen
of a state, Guaranty Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996); and (3) the
amount in controversy must exceed “$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(emphasis added).
The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, and conduct whatever investigation
necessary, to determine whether this Court has diversity jurisdiction. If the parties agree that diversity jurisdiction is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by October 15, 2012
setting forth the parties’ citizenship and a statement regarding the amount in controversy. If the
parties cannot agree on any jurisdictional requirement, they are ordered to file competing jurisdictional statements by October 15, 2012 setting forth their positions.
09/28/2012
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Distribution via ECF only:
Ryan R. Frasher
RYAN FRASHER P.C.
[e-mail]
Geoffrey Mitchell Grodner
MALLOR GRODNER LLP
[e-mail]
Kevin G. Kerr
HOEPPNER, WAGNER & EVANS LLP--Merrillville
[e-mail]
Jared S. Sunday
MALLOR GRODNER LLP
[e-mail]
Michael Eugene Tolbert
HOEPPNER, WAGNER & EVANS LLP--Merrillville
[e-mail]

-3-