APEX ENERGY GROUP LLC v. SCHWEIHS

Filing 7

ORDER. The Court ORDERS Apex to file an Amended Complaint by April 3, 2015, which properly sets forth the basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction - including the citizenship of Apex, Boilermaker, and Mr. Schweihs as detailed above. Defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/20/2015. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

APEX ENERGY GROUP LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOILERMAKER WINDOWS LLC AND DANIEL
SCHWEIHS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-00438-JMS-DKL

ORDER
On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff Apex Energy Group, LLC (“Apex”) filed a Complaint against
Defendants Boilermaker Windows LLC (“Boilermaker”) and Daniel Schweihs, alleging that this
Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. [Filing No. 1 at 2.] Based on Apex’s allegations,
the Court cannot determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction for the reasons detailed below.
Specifically, as to citizenship Apex alleges only that it is a “limited liability company in
good standing under the laws of the State of Indiana” and that Boilermaker is “a limited liability
company formed under the laws of the State of Indiana.” [Filing No. 1 at 1-2.] These allegations
are insufficient to properly allege the citizenship of Apex and Boilermaker. The citizenship of an
unincorporated association is “the citizenship of all the limited partners, as well as of the general
partner.” Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003). “[T]he citizenship of
unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or members
there may be.” Id. at 543. Asserting that all partners are citizens of “X” or that no partners are
citizens of “X” is insufficient. See Peters v. Astrazeneca LP, 224 Fed. Appx. 503, 505 (7th Cir.
2007). In order to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Apex must identify, and provide the

citizenship of, each of Apex’s and Boilermaker’s limited and general partners, traced down to the
lowest layer.
Additionally, Apex alleges “[u]pon information and belief” that Defendant Daniel
Schweihs is a citizen of Virginia. [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”). Apex must allege Mr. Schweihs’
citizenship based on its personal knowledge in order for the Court to determine whether it has
diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
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).
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS Apex to file an Amended Complaint by April 3,
2015, which properly sets forth the basis for this Court’s diversity jurisdiction – including the
citizenship of Apex, Boilermaker, and Mr. Schweihs as detailed above. Defendants need not
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.

Date: March 20, 2015

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

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record