ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. CITY OF KOKOMO et al

Filing 46

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT: The Court ORDERS all of 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 December 16, 2013 setting forth the basis for each of their citizenships and whe ther they agree that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. If the parties cannot agree on their respective citizenships or the amount in controversy, any party who disagrees shall file a separate jurisdictional statement by December 16, 2013 setting forth its view regarding the citizenship of each of the parties and the amount in controversy (see Order for additional information). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/5/2013.(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
AMERICA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
AND GULF UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF KOKOMO,
Defendant,
and
SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Interested Party Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-01573-JMS-DML

ORDER TO FILE JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Plaintiffs St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”), Travelers Indemnity
Company of America (“Travelers of America”), Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers Indemnity”), and Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company (“Gulf”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant City of Kokomo (“Kokomo”) and
“Interested Party Defendant” Selective Insurance Company (“Selective”). [Dkt. 1.] Plaintiffs
allege that Selective is an interested party because Selective – along with Plaintiffs – issued a
liability policy to Kokomo, and “Selective may have an interest in the outcome of this lawsuit as
it pertains to [Plaintiffs’] obligations, if any, to [Kokomo]….” [Id. at 3, ¶ 7.] Plaintiffs allege
that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because: (1) Plaintiffs are
all Connecticut corporations with their principal places of business in Connecticut, [id. at 4, ¶¶ 811]; (2) Kokomo is “a municipality that is classified as a city under Indiana Constitution § 36-12-3 and § 36-4-1-1 and can be sued as such pursuant to Indiana and federal law,” [id. at 4, ¶ 12];
-1-

(3) Selective is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, [id.
at 4, ¶ 13]; and (4) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
[id. at 4, ¶ 14].
Kokomo and Selective have answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint. [Dkts. 40; 41.] In its Answer, Kokomo denies Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding all of the parties’ respective citizenships,
[dkt. 40 at 6-7, ¶¶ 8-13], and denies Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the amount in controversy,
[id. at 7, ¶ 14]. As to the citizenship allegations, Selective states in its Answer that it “is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations….” [Dkt.
41 at 3, ¶¶ 8-13.] For the amount in controversy allegations, Selective admits them “[t]o the extent a response is required.” [Id. at 3-4, ¶ 14.]
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 Kokomo’s and Selective’s answers to the Complaint, the Court
cannot determine whether it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case.
The Court ORDERS all of 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 December
16, 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. If the parties cannot
agree on their respective citizenships or the amount in controversy, any party who disagrees shall

-2-

file a separate jurisdictional statement by December 16, 2013 setting forth its view regarding the
citizenship of each of the parties and the amount in controversy.
12/05/2013
_______________________________

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

-3-

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