BOLES ET AL. V. ELI LILLY AND CO.

Filing 30

ORDER. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to SEAL this document, [Filing No. 28-1], and ORDERS Plaintiffs to re-file the document with Mr. Summerlin's full birthdate redacted immediately. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Summerlin's c laims. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate him as a party to this litigation. Plaintiffs must facilitate the filing of a joint jurisdictional statement as to Ms. Elliott's citizenship by September 1, 2015 and must ensure in the future that they are complying with all aspects of this Court's orders - and complying in a timely fashion as well. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/25/2015. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
NATASHA LYNETTE BOLES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-00351-JMS-DKL

ORDER
On August 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Response to Court’s Order Regarding Submission
of Citizen Declarations. [Filing No. 28.] The Response addresses the Court’s August 11, 2015
Order, [Filing No. 27], which required them to serve declarations on Defendant Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”) from Plaintiffs Glenda Elliott and Sam Summerlin relating to their respective
citizenships, and to facilitate the filing of a joint jurisdictional statement, by August 21, 2015.
In their Response – filed the day after the August 21, 2015 deadline – Plaintiffs state that
while they served a declaration relating to Ms. Elliott’s citizenship by the deadline, they have not
been able to obtain a declaration from Mr. Summerlin. [Filing No. 28 at 2.] In fact, Plaintiffs’
counsel advises that it has not been in contact with Mr. Summerlin since before this lawsuit was
filed in February 2015. [Filing No. 28 at 2.] In lieu of a declaration, Plaintiffs submit: (1) a form
titled “Cymbalta Withdrawal Question[n]aire,” which is undated, allegedly completed by Mr.
Summerlin, and lists his address as a Post Office Box in Florida, [Filing No. 28-1] 1; (2) a note,

1

The Form, as filed, contains Mr. Summerlin’s complete birth date. The Court DIRECTS the
Clerk to SEAL this document, [Filing No. 28-1], and ORDERS Plaintiffs to re-file the document
with Mr. Summerlin’s full birthdate redacted immediately. Further, the Court cautions Plaintiffs’
counsel to ensure that documents with personal identifiers are only filed in redacted form in the
future. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) (requiring certain personal identifiers to be redacted in court filings,
including full birth dates).
-1-

purportedly written by Mr. Summerlin, which identifies several pharmacies and medical providers
located in Florida, [Filing No. 28-2]; and (3) a voter registration information form for Mr. Summerlin that Plaintiffs’ counsel purportedly obtained from Westlaw, indicating that Mr. Summerlin
was registered to vote in Florida as of January 2015, [Filing No. 28-3].
The Court notes at the outset – as it has done in the numerous other jurisdictional orders
that have been issued in this case – that it has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction.
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). While Plaintiffs acknowledge
this fact and note that their response is made “with respect to the Court,” they also state that the
Court has raised the issue of Mr. Summerlin’s citizenship “sua sponte,” that “there is no dispute
about whether Plaintiffs allegations concerning state citizenship are accurate,” that they are attempting to comply with “this Court’s unique subject-matter jurisdiction requirements,” and that
the Court should exercise its “discretion” and find that it has diversity jurisdiction here. [Filing
No. 28 at 3.] Plaintiffs appear to insinuate that the Court is somehow going overboard. Putting
aside the potentially disrespectful nature of these comments, at bottom they demonstrate that Plaintiffs misunderstand the nature of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the role of Plaintiffs, their counsel, and the Court with respect to subject-matter jurisdiction. First, and again, the Court must
determine that it has subject-matter jurisdiction at the outset of the case, and counsel has a professional obligation to determine whether this is so as well. Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,
671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012); Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Court suggests that Plaintiffs’ counsel review Hart v. Terminex Intern., 336 F.3d 541 (7th Cir.
2003), in which the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
After eight years in federal court and consideration by four federal judges (two
magistrate and two district court) this case comes before us on appeal. This substantial consumption of federal resources makes it all the more regrettable that we

-2-

must now order the dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction rendering everything that has occurred in those eight years a nullity. The mandate of
limited federal jurisdiction must be honored by all and the parties to the instant
litigation have failed to do so despite this court’s numerous warnings. Indeed our
warnings have focused on the exact issue that it at the root of the jurisdictional
problem in this case, namely, the misidentification in diversity cases of the citizenship of parties….
Id. at 541. See also id. at 544 (“We…emphasize that this waste of federal judicial resources and
delay of justice was avoidable and reiterate our admonitions to future litigants to meticulously
review the limits of federal jurisdiction”); Ind. Gas Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 314, 319 (7th
Cir. 1998) (dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after three years of litigation,
despite the parties not raising the issue to the district court or on appeal).
The Court’s requirement that Plaintiffs submit a declaration from Mr. Summerlin regarding
his citizenship, and the numerous other orders the Court has had to enter in this and other similar
cases regarding jurisdiction, is not “unique” as Plaintiffs suggest. At least two to three times per
week, this Court orders parties to re-plead, submit jurisdictional statements, or provide evidence
where jurisdiction is contested. In doing so, the Court is simply carrying out its obligation of
determining that it has subject-matter jurisdiction before allowing the litigation to proceed. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals imposes the same obligation of diligence on counsel. Accordingly, the parties must comply with Court orders relating to that obligation. Indeed, the Court
cannot think of a more important responsibility for plaintiffs that choose to bring a lawsuit in
federal court than to demonstrate to the Court at the outset of the litigation that subject-matter
jurisdiction exists.
Further, despite Plaintiffs’ characterization of what has happened thus far in the litigation,
there is a dispute regarding Mr. Summerlin’s citizenship because the parties have not been able to
reach an agreement as to what that citizenship is. Eli Lilly has stated that it lacks knowledge or

-3-

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of those allegations and has
declined to admit them in its Answer. It has proposed that Mr. Summerlin provide a declaration
but, to date, he has not done so. Eli Lilly has not accepted any of the documents Plaintiffs filed as
exhibits to their Response as proof of Mr. Summerlin’s citizenship. Accordingly, the parties do
dispute whether Mr. Summerlin is a citizen of Florida – Plaintiffs say he is, and Eli Lilly says it
does not know whether he is.
Plaintiffs chose to bring this lawsuit in federal court, and it is their burden to demonstrate
to the Court that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Given the dispute, Plaintiffs must establish by
a preponderance of the evidence that the litigation is between citizens of different states, and that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; LM
Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enterprises Inc., 533 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2008) (“A proponent of federal jurisdiction must, if material factual allegations are contested, prove those jurisdictional facts
by a preponderance of the evidence”). In what they call an “eleventh-hour attempt,” Plaintiffs
have provided documentation to support their allegation that Mr. Summerlin is a resident of Florida, but the documents they submit are not admissible evidence from which the Court can draw
conclusions regarding his citizenship. Further, there is no indication that Plaintiffs’ counsel will
be able to reach Mr. Summerlin in the near future, to potentially obtain a declaration.
Finally, the Court does not have “discretion” when it comes to whether it has subject-matter
jurisdiction, as Plaintiffs suggest. Rather, the issue is black and white – there either is subjectmatter jurisdiction or there is not. The problem in this case is that, as to Mr. Summerlin’s claims,
the Court cannot answer that question because Mr. Summerlin has not sustained his burden of
proof. The Court cannot and will not look the other way and allow his claim to proceed without
resolution of this issue.

-4-

Accordingly, because Mr. Summerlin seeks to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction,
has had several chances to provide proof of his citizenship, and was warned that failure to provide
such proof could result in dismissal of his claim, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Summerlin’s claims. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate him as a party to this
litigation. The Court simply will not embark on a potentially long journey with these parties without insuring that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over each of the Plaintiffs’ claims. 2
Finally, as to Ms. Elliott, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have not complied with the portion
of the Court’s August 11, 2015 Order which required Plaintiffs to “facilitate the filing of a joint
jurisdictional statement setting forth the citizenship[]” of Ms. Elliott after a declaration was provided to Eli Lilly. [Filing No. 27 at 1.] So, while Plaintiffs have provided the required declaration
from Ms. Elliott to Eli Lilly, the parties have not reported to the Court whether Lilly now admits
the Complaint’s allegations as to Ms. Elliott’s citizenship. Plaintiffs must facilitate the filing of a
joint jurisdictional statement as to Ms. Elliott’s citizenship by September 1, 2015 and must ensure
in the future that they are complying with all aspects of this Court’s orders – and complying in a
timely fashion as well.

_______________________________

Date: August 25, 2015

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
2

The Court has made clear from the outset of this litigation that each Plaintiff’s claim stands on
its own jurisdictional merit. See, e.g., Del Vecchio v. Conseco, Inc., 230 F.3d 974, 978 (7th Cir.
2000) (each plaintiff must meet amount in controversy requirement); see also Filing No. 12 at 1
(referencing jurisdictional orders in other cases filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel against Eli Lilly that
required that Plaintiffs properly allege the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction for each Plaintiff’s
claim).
-5-