SHEPHERD v. OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS et al

Filing 6

ORDER - The Court ORDERS Mr. Shepherd to file an Amended Complaint on or before July 5, 2013, which addresses the jurisdictional concerns noted above. Defendants need not respond to the Complaint, [dkt. 1], but rather shall timely respond to the Amended Complaint once it is filed. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/26/2013. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
STEVEN R. SHEPHERD,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS
and GYRUS ACMI, INC.,
Defendants.

1:13-cv-01000-JMS-DKL

ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Shepherd filed a Complaint on June 24, 2013 in which he asserts state
law claims against Defendants Olympus Corporation of the Americas (“Olympus”) and Gyrus
Acmi, Inc. (“Gyrus”). [Dkt. 1.] Mr. Shepherd alleges that: (1) he is a citizen of Indiana, [id. at
2, ¶ 5]; (2) Olympus is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, [id. at 1, ¶ 2]; (3) Gyrus is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Massachusetts, [id. at 1, ¶ 3]; and (4) “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,” [id. at 2, ¶
5].
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 Mr. Shepherd’s Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether it
can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case.
Specifically, Mr. Shepherd is reminded that: (1) the amount in controversy must exceed
“$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added); and (2) although a
-1-

plaintiff may aggregate the amounts against defendants to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement if the defendants are jointly liable, a plaintiff must satisfy the amount in controversy
requirement against each individual defendant if the defendants are severally liable, LM Ins.
Corp. v. Spaulding Enters., 533 F.3d 542, 548 (7th Cir. 2008).
The Court ORDERS Mr. Shepherd to file an Amended Complaint on or before July 5,
2013, which addresses the jurisdictional concerns noted above. Defendants need not respond to
the Complaint, [dkt. 1], but rather shall timely respond to the Amended Complaint once it is
filed.

06/26/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
A. Richard Blaiklock
LEWIS WAGNER, LLP
[e-mail]
Ryan John Vershay
LEWIS WAGNER LLP
[e-mail]

-2-