ANTON REALTY, LLC v. GUARDIAN BROKERS LTD., INC.

Filing 113

ORDER: For these reasons, the Court STRIKES the parties' Joint Jurisdictional Statement at Filing No. 112. The parties are ORDERED to conduct whatever investigation is necessary to file a joint jurisdictional statement by February 23, 2015, correcting the deficiencies identified herein and with which all parties can agree. If the parties cannot agree on the contents of a joint jurisdictional statement after diligent inquiry and effort, they are ordered to file competing statements by that date ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/9/2015.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ANTON REALTY, LLC,
ANDY MOHR TRUCK CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GUARDIAN BROKERS LTD., INC.,
NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, NA,
Defendants.
______________________________________
GUARDIAN BROKERS LTD., INC.,
Counter Claimant,
vs.
ANDY MOHR TRUCK CENTER, INC.,
ANTON REALTY, LLC,
Counter Defendants.

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

No. 1:13-cv-01915-JMS-TAB

ORDER
On February 5, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Jurisdiction Statement pursuant to a previous
order from the Court to do so. [Filing No. 110; Filing No. 112.] Because of deficiencies in the
jurisdictional allegations of that statement, another jurisdictional statement is required.
First, the parties assert that Plaintiff Anton Realty LLC (“Anton”) is an Indiana Limited
Liability Company with its principal place of business in Indiana. [Filing No. 112.] The parties
represent that Andrew Mohr “is the sole member of Anton Realty,” but they fail to assert Mr.
Mohr’s citizenship, instead representing that he “is an Indiana resident.” [Filing No. 112 at 1.]

1

An allegation of residence is inadequate. McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 653
(7th Cir. 1998). Residency and citizenship are not the same, and it is the latter that matters for
purposes of diversity. Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir.
2002).
Second, the parties assert that Defendant National Bank of Commerce, NA (“NBC”) “is a
national banking association with its principal place of business in Alabama.” [Filing No. 112 at
1.] For purposes of establishing citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, a national bank is a citizen
of “the State designated in its articles of association as its main office.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt,
546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006). The parties make no representation regarding the State designated in
NBC’s articles of association as its main office.
Third, the parties’ statement represents that “[p]ursuant to agreement with counsel for the
Plaintiffs, NBC has not yet filed a responsive pleading in this action; therefore NBC reserves all
claims and defenses available to it in this action and at law. NBC is without any knowledge or
information concerning the Property (defined below) and makes no statement or representation
concerning its value or the amount in controversy in this action.” [Filing No. 112 at 2.] The Court
is not bound by any agreement between the parties, and federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot
be conferred by consent of the parties. Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy,
LLC, 589 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2009).

Because NBC does not join the other parties’

representation that the amount in controversy in this action is $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, the Court cannot confirm that it has diversity jurisdiction over this action. If the property at
issue is in fact valued at $700,000, as the other parties represent, [Filing No. 112 at 2], NBC should
be able to quickly confirm that the amount in controversy meets the required jurisdictional amount.

2

For these reasons, the Court STRIKES the parties’ Joint Jurisdictional Statement at Filing
No. 112. The parties are ORDERED to conduct whatever investigation is necessary to file a joint
jurisdictional statement by February 23, 2015, correcting the deficiencies identified herein and
with which all parties can agree. If the parties cannot agree on the contents of a joint jurisdictional
statement after diligent inquiry and effort, they are ordered to file competing statements by that
date.

February 9, 2015

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

Electronic Distribution via CM/ECF:
Cynthia Reese
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
[e-mail]
Mark R. Waterfill
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN, & ARONOFF, LLP
[e-mail]
Jason R. Delk
DELK MCNALLY
[e-mail]
Michael T. McNally
DELK MCNALLY
[e-mail]
Michael L. Einterz, Jr.
EINTERZ & EINTERZ
[e-mail]
Michael L. Einterz, Sr.
EINTERZ & EINTERZ
[e-mail]
3

Scott Stuart Morrisson
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
[e-mail]
Kevin C. Gray
Maynard Cooper & Gale PC
[e-mail]

4