MANNING et al v. KENNEDY et al

Filing 9

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 jurisdi ction is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by March 18, 2013 setting forth the basis for each of their citizenships and whether they agree that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. *** SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER REQUIREMENTS *** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/7/2013. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BOBBI J. MANNING and RYAN MANNING,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ELTON W. KENNEDY and COOPER TRUCK
LINE, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-00197-JMS-DML

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Defendants Cooper Truck Line, Inc. (“Cooper”) and Elton W. Kennedy filed a Notice of
Removal on February 4, 2013 in which they allege that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over
this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). [Dkt. 1 at 3, ¶ 13.] Specifically, Cooper and Mr.
Kennedy allege that: (1) Plaintiffs are “an adult married couple residing in Greene County, Indiana, and are therefore citizens of Indiana,” [id. at 1, ¶ 2]; (2) Mr. Kennedy is “a resident of the
State of Mississippi…and is a citizen of Mississippi,” [id. at 1, ¶ 3]; (3) Cooper is a Mississippi
corporation with its principal place of business in Mississippi, [id. at 2, ¶ 4]; (4) “the amount in
controversy for the claim of Plaintiff Bobbi J. Manning exceeds $75,000” [id. at 3, ¶ 12]; and (5)
“[a]lthough Plaintiff Bobbi Manning represents in her Response to Defendants’ Request for Admissions that the amount in controversy for the claim of Plaintiff Ryan Manning does not exceed
$75,000, this Court shall have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the loss
of consortium claim of Plaintiff Ryan Manning because it allegedly arises out of his loss of companionship, society, services and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Bobbi J. Manning due to the

-1-

injuries that she allegedly suffered in the Accident, and is therefore so related to Plaintiff Bobbi
J. Manning’s claim that they form part of the same case or controversy,” [id. at 3, ¶ 14].1
Local Rule 81-1(b) applies to diversity removals, and provides:
Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal, every plaintiff who has
not filed a motion to remand must file a statement responding to the notice of removal’s allegations as to citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy.
If the plaintiff lacks sufficient information upon which to form a belief about
those allegations despite meeting and conferring in good faith with the removing
party about them, the plaintiff may so state.
Counsel is reminded that the Court’s Local Rules “have the force of law” and must not be
disregarded. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 291 F.2d 542, 545 (7th Cir. 1961). Furthermore, the Court
notes that Local Rule 81-1(b) and its counterpart for removing parties, L.R. 81-1(a), have been
designed for an important purpose: to help counsel fulfill their “professional obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction before judges need to question the allegations,” Heinen v.
Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). To date, Plaintiffs have failed to
file the statement required under Local Rule 81-1(b).
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, id.,
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 the Notice of Removal, and because
Plaintiffs failed to file a Local Rule 81-1 Statement, the Court cannot determine whether it can
exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case.

1

The State Court Complaint does not contain any allegations regarding the parties’ citizenships
or the amount in controversy. [Dkt. 1-1 at 1-6.]
-2-

Accordingly, 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 March
18, 2013 setting forth the basis for each of their citizenships and whether they agree that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. The parties are specifically reminded that: (1) 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.; and (2) the amount in controversy must exceed “$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added) – a statement missing from the Notice of
Removal. The joint jurisdictional statement should also address whether the Court can exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of Plaintiff Ryan Manning, as the parties appear to disagree regarding that issue. 2 If the parties cannot agree on their respective citizenships, the
amount in controversy, or whether the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr.
Manning’s claims, any party who disagrees shall file a separate jurisdictional statement by
March 18, 2013 setting forth its views on those issues. The joint jurisdictional statement, or the
competing jurisdictional statement, shall satisfy Plaintiffs’ obligations under Local Rule 81-1.

2

See, e.g., dkt. 1-1 at 89 (reflecting that: (1) in response to Request for Admission 1, which
asked Plaintiffs to admit that “your claim in the above-captioned lawsuit does not exceed the
value of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs,” Ms. Manning stated “[d]enied because my
claim exceeds $75,000 [but a]dmitted to the extent the amount in controversy of my spouse’s
loss of consortium claim does not exceed $75,000”; and (2) in response to Request for Admission 2, which asked Plaintiffs to admit that “all claims alleged in the above-captioned lawsuit do
not exceed the value of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs,” Ms. Manning stated “[e]ach
claim must meet the federal amount in controversy threshold….The value of one claim exceeds
$75,000 and the value of the other claim does not”).
-3-

03/07/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
Angela S. Cash
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC
[e-mail]
Thomas E. Schulte
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC
[e-mail]
Bradford James Smith
KEN NUNN LAW OFFICE
[e-mail]

-4-