TRANSPOINT, LLC v. OXBRIDGE VENTURES, INC. 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 jurisdiction is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by April 5, 2013 setting forth the parties' citizenships and the amount in controversy. Specifically, the parties shall set forth the names and citizenships of each of Transport's members, traced through every layer of membership or partnership. If the parties cannot agree on their citizenships or the amount in controversy, they are ordered to file competing jurisdictional statements by April 5, 2013 setting forth their positions. The joint jurisdictional statement, or competing jurisdictional statement, shall satisfy Plaintiff's obligations under Local Rule 81-1 ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/26/2013.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
TRANSPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OXBRIDGE VENTURES, INC., CAPITAL FUNDING OF AMERICA, INC. and KARIM RAJANI,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-00436-JMS-DKL

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Defendants Oxbridge Ventures, Inc. (“Oxbridge”), Capital Funding of America, Inc.
(“Capital”), and Karim Rajani filed a Notice of Removal on March 15, 2013. [Dkt. 1.] In the
Notice, Defendants state that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because: (1) “[a]ccording to information provided by Plaintiff’s counsel…Plaintiff Transport, LLC
[(“Transport”)] has four members, and each member is domiciled in either Indiana, Michigan or
Ohio,” [id. at 1-2, ¶ 2]; (2) Oxbridge is “a corporation organized under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, with its principal place of business in British Columbia,” [id.]; (3) Capital is an
Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, [id.]; (4) Karim Rajani is a citizen of British Columbia, Canada, [id.]; and (5) “[a]ccording to the Complaint, [Transport] seeks
damages of at least $400,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” [id. at 2, ¶ 3].
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
has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420,
427 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court has diversity jurisdiction over certain controversies between citi-1-

zens of a state and citizens of a foreign state, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and foreign corporations
are citizens of the foreign state where they are incorporated and the foreign state where they have
their principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). However, based on Defendants’ Notice
of Removal, the Court cannot determine whether it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this
case.
Specifically, the parties are reminded that: (1) the citizenship of an unincorporated association is “the citizenship of all the limited partners, as well as of the general partner,” Hart v.
Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003); (2) “the citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be,” id. at
543; and (3) asserting that all partners are citizens of “X” or that no partners are citizens of “X”
is insufficient, Peters v. Astrazeneca LP, 224 Fed. Appx. 503, 505 (7th Cir. 2007).
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 April 5, 2013 setting forth the parties’ citizenships and the amount in controversy. Specifically, the parties shall
set forth the names and citizenships of each of Transport’s members, traced through every layer
of membership or partnership. If the parties cannot agree on their citizenships or the amount in
controversy, they are ordered to file competing jurisdictional statements by April 5, 2013 setting
forth their positions. The joint jurisdictional statement, or competing jurisdictional statement,
shall satisfy Plaintiff’s obligations under Local Rule 81-1.
03/26/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Distribution via ECF only:
David J. Hensel
PENCE HENSEL LLC
[e-mail]
Scott E. Murray
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Linda L. Pence
PENCE HENSEL LLC
[e-mail]
Julie L. Smith
PENCE HENSEL LLC
[e-mail]

-3-