BEIJING AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION v. INDIAN INDUSTRIES, INC. et al

Filing 57

ORDER - For this Court to ensure that it has jurisdiction, the parties are ORDERED to file another Joint Jurisdictional Statement setting forth the following: (a) what kind of business form [Plaintiff] has; (b) what attributes such a form pos-sess es under Chinese law (for example, does it have alienable shares, and what role does the government of China play in determining the venture's duration and own-ership?); and (c) whether a business organization of this kind should be treated a s a corporation for the purpose of § 1332, given the analysis in Fellowes and Bou-Matic. The parties' joint jurisdictional statement must be filed by October 6, 2014, and if they cannot agree, the parties must file individual statements by the same date **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/23/2014. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BEIJING AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY IMPORT AND
EXPORT CORPORATION,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
vs.
INDIAN INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a ESCALADE
SPORTS,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-01850-JMS-DML

ORDER
Following three jurisdictional orders in this case, the Court accepted the parties’ Joint Jurisdictional Statement as sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court at that time. [Filing No. 27.]
The parties’ Joint Jurisdictional Statement was, at least in part, predicated on the Affidavit of
Jimmy Wang. [Filing No. 24-1.] Approximately nine months later, Plaintiff filed a Second Affidavit of Jimmy Wang that amended his original affidavit. [Filing No. 52.] The Court, in a fourth
jurisdictional order, required the parties to explain whether the changes in the affidavit affected
the Court’s jurisdiction. [Filing No. 53.] The parties submitted a Second Joint Jurisdictional
Statement, but they only stated that they agree that the Second Affidavit of Jimmy Wang does not
“affect whether the Court has jurisdiction”; they did not further explain why this is so. [Filing No.
54 at 2.]
The Court has an independent duty to ensure that it possesses jurisdiction over the actions
assigned to it. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). The Seventh
Circuit has recently provided significant guidance in resolving similar issues as the one presented
here. See InStep Software LLC v. Instep (Beijing) Software Co., Ltd., --- Fed. Appx. ----, 2014 WL
4637171 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Fellowes, Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equipment

-1-

Co., 759 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2014); BouMatic, LLC v. Idento Operations, BV, 759 F.3d 790 (7th
Cir. 2014)). For this Court to ensure that it has jurisdiction, the parties are ORDERED to file
another Joint Jurisdictional Statement setting forth the following:
(a) what kind of business form [Plaintiff] has; (b) what attributes such a form possesses under Chinese law (for example, does it have alienable shares, and what role
does the government of China play in determining the venture’s duration and ownership?); and (c) whether a business organization of this kind should be treated as
a corporation for the purpose of § 1332, given the analysis in Fellowes and BouMatic.
Id. at *1.
The parties’ joint jurisdictional statement must be filed by October 6, 2014, and if they
cannot agree, the parties must file individual statements by the same date.

_______________________________

September 23, 2014

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

-2-