WASHINGTON v. GENERAL MOTORS, INC.

Filing 7

ORDER to file joint jurisdictional statement-The Court orders the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement by 6/14/2013, certifying the parties' citizenship and that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeded &# 036;75,000 at the time of removal. If the parties cannot agree on the parties' citizenship, the amount in controversy, or any other jurisdictional requirement, they are ordered to file competing jurisdictional statements by that date setting forth their positions. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/7/2013.(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARGO WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GENERAL MOTORS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-00885-JMS-DKL

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
On May 31, 2013, Defendant removed Plaintiffs’ civil action to this Court from Marion
County Superior Court. [Dkt. 1.] Defendant did so alleging that this Court can exercise
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446 and 1332. [Id. at 2.]
Defendant asserts, “Diversity of citizenship exists because plaintiff, Margo Washington,
is a resident of the State of Indiana,” [dkt. 1 at 2 ¶ 9]. However, “residence and citizenship are
not synonyms, and it is the latter that matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” Meyerson v.
Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002).
Defendant also alleges that “the amount in controversy in this action … exceeds the sum
of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interests [sic],” [dkt. 1 at 3 ¶ 16],
but 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the amount in controversy exceed “$75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b).
The Court is not being hyper-technical; the Court has an independent obligation to ensure
that there is diversity among the parties. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th
Cir. 2007).

Having reviewed the docket, the Court cannot assure itself that it can exercise

diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

1

For these reasons, and because jurisdiction always constitutes a threshold question in any
action, see, e.g., Sandoval v. City of Chicago, 560 F.3d 703, 704 (7th Cir. 2009), the Court
ORDERS the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement by June 14, 2013, certifying the
parties’ citizenship and that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeded
$75,000 at the time of removal. If the parties cannot agree on the parties’ citizenship, the amount
in controversy, or any other jurisdictional requirement, they are ordered to file competing
jurisdictional statements by that date setting forth their positions.

06/07/2013

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

Distribution via ECF only to counsel of record.

2