MCKINNEY et al v. BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES, LP et al

Filing 7

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 jurisdictio n is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by September 28, 2012 setting forth Plaintiffs' citizenship. If the parties cannot agree on Plaintiffs' citizenship, or on any other jurisdictional requirement, they are ordere d to file competing jurisdictional statements by September 28, 2012 setting forth their positions. The joint jurisdictional statement, or competing jurisdictional statement, shall satisfy Plaintiffs' obligations under Local Rule 81-1 (S.O.). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/14/2012.(MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARCI MCKINNEY and JEFF MCKINNEY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES, LP and JIM DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-01296-JMS-DKL

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Defendant BioLife Plasma Services, LP (“BioLife”) filed a Notice of Removal on September 11, 2012. [Dkt. 1.] In the Notice, BioLife states that this Court has diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because: (1) “Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint…that they are residents of the State of Indiana,” [id. at 2, ¶ 2]; (2) BioLife is a Pennsylvania limited partnership
between Baxter Healthcare Corporation (a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois) and BioLife Plasma, LLC (a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois), and the sole member of BioLife Plasma, LLC is Baxter
Healthcare Corporation, [id. at 2, ¶ 3]; (3) Defendant Jim Doe is a fictitious defendant, so should
be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, [id. at 2, ¶ 4]; and (4) although
the Complaint does not specify the amount Plaintiffs’ seek, they have demanded over $75,000 to
settle the case and, accordingly, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, [id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 6-7].
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
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

-1-

has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420,
427 (7th Cir. 2009). Because neither BioLife’s Notice of Removal, [dkt.1], nor the Complaint,
[dkt. 1-1], provides Plaintiffs’ citizenship, the Court cannot determine whether it can exercise
diversity jurisdiction over this case.
Specifically, the parties are reminded that: (1) an allegation of residency is not enough to
establish diversity jurisdiction, McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 653 (7th Cir.
1998); (2) residency and citizenship are not the same, Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002), and it is the citizenship that matters for purposes of diversity, id.; (3) 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); and (4) 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).
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 September 28,
2012 setting forth Plaintiffs’ citizenship. If the parties cannot agree on Plaintiffs’ citizenship, or
on any other jurisdictional requirement, they are ordered to file competing jurisdictional statements by September 28, 2012 setting forth their positions. The joint jurisdictional statement, or
competing jurisdictional statement, shall satisfy Plaintiffs’ obligations under Local Rule 81-1.
09/14/2012

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
-2-

Distribution via ECF only:
William David Beyers
HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS
[e-mail]
Theodore J. Blanford
HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS
[e-mail]
George A. Gasper
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]
Alison D. Plavin
ICE MILLER LLP
[e-mail]

-3-