McGILL v. HAKE et al

Filing 5

ENTRY ON JURISDICTION - The Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This statement should specifically identify the correct threshold amount in controversy required for a class action in federal court and the amount in controversy in this action. This statement also should identify the citizenship of Defendant Harris Communication Solutions (Indiana), Inc. This Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement is due 14 days from the date of this Entry. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/25/2015.(MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WILLIAM McGILL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
RALPH HAKE, DAVID F MELCHER,
JOHN J. HAMRE, PAUL J. KERN,
HERMAN E. BULLS, PATRICK MOORE,
MARK L. REUSS, ROBERT DAVID YOST,
BILLIE I. WILLIAMSON, HARRIS
CORPORATION, HARRIS
COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS
(INDIANA), INC.,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:15-cv-00217-TWP-DKL

ENTRY ON JURISDICTION
It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint fails to allege
all of the facts necessary to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. The Class Action Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction based upon diversity of
citizenship. However, the Class Action Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the amount in
controversy component for diversity jurisdiction in a class action. Additionally, the Class Action
Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant Harris Communication Solutions
(Indiana), Inc. Citizenship is the operative consideration for jurisdictional purposes. See Meyerson
v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (“residence and citizenship
are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction”).
The Plaintiff has initiated this lawsuit by filing his Class Action Complaint (Filing No. 1).
The Class Action Complaint alleges that “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive

of interests and costs,” (Filing No. 1 at 5), but the amount in controversy in a class action must
exceed “$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). While the Class
Action Complaint alleges that “the Proposed Transaction is valued at $4.75 billion,” (Filing No. 1
at 5), the jurisdictional statement does not allege the correct threshold amount for diversity
jurisdiction.
Additionally, the Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendant Harris Communication
Solutions (Indiana), Inc. is an Indiana corporation, but it does not allege the principal place of
business of this Defendant (Filing No. 1 at 7). The citizenship of a corporation is “both the state
of incorporation and the state in which the corporation has its principal place of business.”
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kuhns, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138262, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 30, 2011).
Therefore, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that
establishes the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. This statement should specifically identify the
correct threshold amount in controversy required for a class action in federal court and the amount
in controversy in this action. This statement also should identify the citizenship of Defendant
Harris Communication Solutions (Indiana), Inc. This Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement is due
14 days from the date of this Entry.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/25/2015

2

Distribution:
James Piatt
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
[e-mail]
William N. Riley
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
[e-mail]

3