ROSE v. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TOXICOLOGY, INC.

Filing 19

ORDER: This case was recently transferred to this Court from the Eastern District of Tennessee. This Order addresses two issues: subject-matter jurisdiction and attorney regi stration. Regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, Defendant American Institute of Toxicology, In c. ("AIT") removed this case to federal court on August 21, 2013, alleging that diversity j urisdiction exists. [Filing No. 1.] This Court must independently determine whether proper diversity among the parties exists. There is an issue preventing the Court from assuring itself that diversity jurisdiction is proper. To cure this jurisdictional concern, if the parties agree on the matter, they must file a joint jurisdictional statement by July 18, 2014 that properly sets forth the citizenship of Plaintiff Lauri Rose. Furthermore, the parties should also confirm the ci tizenship of AIG and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Should the parties not agree about these matters, they must file individual jurisdictional statements setting forth their pos itions by July 18, 2014. Regarding attorney registration, all attorneys in this case must be admitted to practice before this Court in accordance with Local Rule 83-5 (see Order for additional information. Copy to R. Jonathan Guthrie, Karen M. Smith and Scott E. Simmons via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/8/2014.(SWM) Modified on 7/9/2014 (SWM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LAURI ROSE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TOXICOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-01128-JMS-DML

ORDER
This case was recently transferred to this Court from the Eastern District of Tennessee.
This Order addresses two issues: subject-matter jurisdiction and attorney registration.
Regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, Defendant American Institute of Toxicology, Inc.
(“AIT”) removed this case to federal court on August 21, 2013, alleging that diversity
jurisdiction exists. [Filing No. 1.] This Court must independently determine whether proper
diversity among the parties exists. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir.
2007). There is an issue preventing the Court from assuring itself that diversity jurisdiction is
proper. AIG states in its Notice of Removal that “[u]pon information and belief, Plaintiff is a
citizen and resident of the State of Tennessee.” [Filing No. 1 at 2.] Jurisdictional allegations
must be made on personal knowledge, not on information and belief, to invoke the subject matter
jurisdiction of a federal court. See America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980
F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (only a statement about jurisdiction “made on personal
knowledge has any value” and a statement made “‘to the best of my knowledge and belief’ is
insufficient” to engage diversity jurisdiction “because it says nothing about citizenship”).
To cure this jurisdictional concern, if the parties agree on the matter, they must file a joint
jurisdictional statement by July 18, 2014 that properly sets forth the citizenship of Plaintiff Lauri
1

Rose. Furthermore, the parties should also confirm the citizenship of AIG and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Should the parties not agree about
these matters, they must file individual jurisdictional statements setting forth their positions by
July 18, 2014.
Regarding attorney registration, all attorneys in this case must be admitted to practice
before this Court in accordance with Local Rule 83-5. Moreover, only attorneys who are
admitted to practice before this Court and who have proper appearances in this case are entitled
to receive service of Court entries and orders. Counsel are thus cautioned that after this Order,
no further entries or orders will be served on attorneys who are not properly admitted to practice
before this Court and have not properly appeared in this case. The Court assumes that counsel
not now admitted to practice before this Court will act promptly, pursuant to Local Rule 83-5, to
remedy that problem.

In the meantime, attorneys who are not currently admitted should

frequently check the docket of this case through PACER to ensure that they do not miss any
dates and deadlines.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to file their jurisdictional statements with
respect to subject matter jurisdiction in the manner set forth above by July 18, 2014.

07/08/2014
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

2

Distribution by U.S. Mail to:
R. Jonathan Guthrie
Patrick, Beard, Schulman & Jacoway, PC
537 Market Street
Suite 202
Chattanooga, TN 37402-1225
Karen M. Smith
Miller & Martin LLP
1000 Volunteer Building
832 Georgia Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Scott E. Simmons
Miller & Martin, PLLC
832 Georgia Avenue
1000 Volunteer Building
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Distribution via ECF only:
David A. Given
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
[e-mail]
Ryann E. Ricchio
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
[e-mail]

3