HOLLAND v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

Filing 10

ORDER: For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Ms. Holland's Motion to Amend, [dkt. 8], to the extent that the Court will allow Ms. Holland to amend her complaint, but DENIES the motion to the extent that Ms. Holland seeks to file the proposed am ended complaint that she attaches to her motion, [dkt. 8-1]. Ms. Holland has until October 2, 2013 to file an amended complaint that properly pleads diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court's jurisdiction ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/25/2013. (DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MADONNA J. HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-1485-JMS-DML

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Madonna J. Holland’s Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 8.] The Court GRANTS the motion to the extent that the Court
will allow Ms. Holland to amend her complaint, but DENIES the motion to the extent that Ms.
Holland’s proposed amended complaint is insufficient to plead diversity jurisdiction. Ms. Holland’s proposed amended complaint does not plead any basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and to the extent that some of her allegations could be construed as an attempt to allege diversity jurisdiction, they are wholly insufficient. [Dkt. 8-1.]
First, Ms. Holland’s proposed amended complaint alleges that she is a resident of Indiana. [Id. at 1 ¶ 1.] An allegation of residence is inadequate to plead diversity jurisdiction,
McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 653 (7th Cir. 1998), because residency and citizenship are not the same, and it is citizenship that matters for purposes of diversity, Meyerson v.
Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002).
Second, Ms. Holland’s proposed amended complaint alleges that Defendant Wal-Mart
Stores East, LP (“Wal-Mart”) is a limited liability corporation that operates in Indiana. [Id. at 1 ¶
2.] This allegation says nothing about Wal-Mart’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Ms. Holland is reminded that the citizenship of an unincorporated association is “the citi-

-1-

zenship of all the limited partners, as well as of the general partner” and “must be traced through
however many layers of partners or members there may be.” Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d
541, 542-43 (7th Cir. 2003). Moreover, asserting that all partners are citizens of “X” or that no
partners are citizens of “X” is insufficient. See Peters v. Astrazeneca LP, 224 Fed. Appx. 503,
505 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting the insufficiency of a limited partnership asserting that none of its
partners were citizens destroying diversity “rather than furnishing the citizenship of all of its
partners so that [the court] could determine its citizenship”). Ms. Holland is further reminded
that Wal-Mart provided detailed allegations regarding its structure in its Notice of Removal, [dkt.
1 at 1 ¶ 2], which she apparently agreed with all of two days ago, [dkt. 7].
Third, Ms. Holland’s proposed amended complaint does not allege an amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs. [Dkt. 8-1.] The amount in controversy must exceed
“$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs” for the Court to have diversity jurisdiction over the
matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added).
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).
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Ms. Holland’s Motion to Amend, [dkt. 8], to
the extent that the Court will allow Ms. Holland to amend her complaint, but DENIES the
motion to the extent that Ms. Holland seeks to file the proposed amended complaint that
she attaches to her motion, [dkt. 8-1]. Ms. Holland has until October 2, 2013 to file an
amended complaint that properly pleads diversity jurisdiction as the basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction.

-2-

09/25/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
Counsel of Record

-3-