MAYS et al v. DAVOL, INC. et al

Filing 9

ORDER - The Court ORDERS 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 ju risdictional statement by August 15, 2014 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 respecti ve citizenships or the amount in controversy, any party who disagrees shall file a separate jurisdictional statement by August 15, 2014 setting forth its views on those issues. The joint jurisdictional statement, or the competing jurisdictional statement, shall satisfy Plaintiffs' obligations under Local Rule 81-1. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/6/2014.(JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROGER MAYS and NANCY MAYS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-01181-JMS-DKL

ORDER
On July 15, 2014, Defendants Davol, Inc. (“Davol”) and C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) removed this case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. [Filing No. 1.] In the Notice of
Removal, Davol and Bard properly set forth the citizenship of Plaintiffs Roger and Nancy Mays
(Indiana), Davol (Rhode Island), and Bard (New Jersey). [Filing No. 1 at 2.] Davol and Bard
also stated that diversity jurisdiction exists because the amount in controversy is “in excess of
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.” [Filing No. 1 at 2-3.]
On August 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which alleges that this Court
has diversity jurisdiction. [Filing No. 8 at 1-2.] Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations, however,
are defective. First, Plaintiffs allege that they are “residents of…Indiana,” [Filing No. 8 at 1],
but 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, Plaintiffs state simply that the amount in controversy is “in excess of Seventy Five Thousand ($75,000) dollars,” [Filing No. 8 at 1], but the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000
“exclusive of interest and costs” in order for the jurisdictional amount to be satisfied. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.

-1-

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).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS 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 August 15, 2014 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
file a separate jurisdictional statement by August 15, 2014 setting forth its views on those issues.
The joint jurisdictional statement, or the competing jurisdictional statement, shall satisfy Plaintiffs’ obligations under Local Rule 81-1.

08/06/2014
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

-2-