AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. B&B VENTURES, INC., d/b/a MILLER TAVERN et al

Filing 16

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 the diversity jurisdict ion is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by 6/19/2013. If the parties cannot agree on the respective citizenships or the amount in controversy, they shall file separate jurisdictional statements by 6/19/2013. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/7/2013.(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
B&B VENTURES, INC. d/b/a MILLER TAVERN
and BRIAN BURNETTE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-00540-JMS-DML

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Plaintiff Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“Auto-Owners”) filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Defendants B&B Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Miller Tavern
(“B&B”) and Brian Burnette alleging that diversity jurisdiction exists over this matter. [Dkt. 9 at
2, ¶ 5.] Auto-Owners alleges that: (1) it is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business in Michigan, [id. at 1, ¶ 1]; (2) B&B is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of
business in Indiana, [id. at 1, ¶ 2]; (3) Mr. Burnette is a citizen of Indiana, [id. at 1, ¶ 3]; and (4)
the amount in controversy “exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), exclusive of interests and costs,” [id. at 2, ¶ 6].
B&B has answered Auto-Owners’ Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 15.] In its Answer, B&B
admits that it is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana, [id. at 1-2,
¶ 2], but states that it is “without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material allegations” regarding Auto-Owners’ citizenship, Mr. Burnette’s citizenship, whether this
Court has diversity jurisdiction, and whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. [Id. at 1-3, ¶¶ 1, 3, 5-6.] Mr. Burnette has not yet answered the
Amended Complaint.

-1-

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). Based on B&B’s Answer to the Amended Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
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 June 19, 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. Because Mr. Burnette has not appeared or answered the Amended Complaint, the joint jurisdictional statement shall also include
a statement by Auto-Owners setting forth Auto-Owners’ factual basis for the allegation that Mr.
Burnette is a citizen of Indiana, and a statement by B&B regarding whether it has any information to dispute Auto-Owners’ allegation regarding Mr. Burnette’s citizenship. If the parties
cannot agree on their respective citizenships or the amount in controversy, they shall file separate
jurisdictional statements by June 19, 2013 setting forth their views regarding the citizenship of
each of the parties and the amount in controversy.

06/07/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Distribution via ECF only:
Christopher D. Simpkins
TAYLOR LAW FIRM
[e-mail]
David L. Taylor
TAYLOR LAW FIRM, PC
[e-mail]
Alan D. Wilson
[e-mail]

-3-