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

Filing 84

ORDER: Accordingly, the City is ORDERED TO FILE A REPORT by August 25, 2014, explaining the basis for the changed representations in its Answer regarding the parties' citizenship. Should the City wish to amend jurisdictional responses in its A nswer, its report should attach a proposed Amended Answer. Defendant Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina is cautioned to keep these principles in mind to avoid the Court issuing a similar entry after it files its answer ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/13/2014. Copy sent via US Mail.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF KOKOMO,
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-01573-JMS-DML

ORDER
On December 17, 2013, the Court accepted the parties’ Joint Jurisdictional Statement as
sufficient to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over this matter at that time. [Filing No.
51.] On July 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, properly setting forth allegations
sufficient to plead the existence of the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over this matter. [Filing No.
78 at 5-6.]
Most of Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations are consistent with the parties’ Joint
Jurisdictional Order1 and they properly plead diversity jurisdiction.

[Filing No. 50 at 2 with

Filing No. 78 at 5-6.] Although Defendant City of Kokomo (the “City”) signed the Joint
Jurisdictional Statement making those representations, [Filing No. 50 at 3], its Answer asserts
that it “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
[jurisdictional] allegations[,]” [Filing No. 83 at 8-9]. Curiously, despite disclaiming knowledge
of the factual underpinnings of diversity jurisdiction, the City admits that this Court has “original
jurisdiction over this action because the controversy is between citizens of different states and
1

Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina, [Filing No. 78
at 5-6], differ from the representations in the parties’ Joint Jurisdictional Statement, [Filing No.
50 at 2].

exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” [Filing
No. 83 at 9.] Such an admission is insufficient because the Court has a responsibility to ensure
that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009), and the
parties cannot confer jurisdiction on it, see, e.g., United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th
Cir. 2000) (“No court may decide a case without subject matter jurisdiction, and neither the
parties nor their lawyers may stipulate to jurisdiction or waive arguments that the court lacks
jurisdiction.”).
The Court cannot determine whether the conflicting information described herein is
based on events that have taken place since the parties’ submission of the Joint Jurisdictional
Statement, [Filing No. 50], or because of inattention by the City in its Answer, [Filing No. 83].
Either way, it necessitates the Court to again confirm that it has diversity jurisdiction over this
matter. Accordingly, the City is ORDERED TO FILE A REPORT by August 25, 2014,
explaining the basis for the changed representations in its Answer regarding the parties’
citizenship. Should the City wish to amend jurisdictional responses in its Answer, its report
should attach a proposed Amended Answer. Defendant Selective Insurance Company of South
Carolina is cautioned to keep these principles in mind to avoid the Court issuing a similar entry
after it files its answer.
08/13/2014
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Katrine L. Hyde
CARROLL MCNULTY & KULL LLC
120 Mountain View Blvd.
Basking Ridge, NJ 07046

Margaret F. Catalano
CARROLL MCNULTY & KULL LLC
120 Mountain View Blvd.
Basking Ridge, NJ 07046
Mary Fechtig
CARROLL MCNULTY & KULL, LLC
[e-mail]
Adam C. Decker
PLUNKETT & COONEY PC
[e-mail]
Charles W. Browning
PLUNKETT & COONEY, P.C.
[e-mail]
Pamela A. Paige
PLUNKETT COONEY
[e-mail]
Danielle Perez
PLUNKETT COONEY PC
[e-mail]
David L. Guevara
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
[e-mail]
Thomas F. O’Gara
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
[e-mail]