SUMMERS v. RTM INDIANAPOLIS, LLC

Filing 5

ENTRY ON JURISDICTION - The Defendant is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement is due 14 days from the date of this Entry. Copy to Atty. Matthew McConnell via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/2/2015.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BARBARA SUMMERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTM INDIANAPOLIS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-01671-TWP-DKL

ENTRY ON JURISDICTION
It has come to the Court’s attention that the Defendant’s Notice of Removal fails to allege
all of the facts necessary to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. The Notice of Removal alleges that this Court has jurisdiction based upon diversity of
citizenship. However, the Notice of Removal fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of the
Plaintiff. 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 invoke diversity jurisdiction “because it says nothing about
citizenship”); Page v. Wright, 116 F.2d 449, 451 (7th Cir. 1940) (an allegation of a party’s
citizenship for diversity purposes that is “made only upon information and belief” is unsupported).
The Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint in state court, after which the
Defendant filed its Notice of Removal. The Notice of Removal alleges that “[b]ased upon
Defendant’s information and belief, Plaintiff is a resident of Hancock County, Indiana. Defendant
has a good faith belief that Plaintiff is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a citizen of Indiana.”

(Filing No. 1 at 1.) Allegations made upon information and belief are not sufficient to allow the
Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
Therefore, the Defendant is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement
that establishes the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. This Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement
is due 14 days from the date of this Entry.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 11/2/2015

Distribution:
Andrew M. Palmer
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
[e-mail]
Matthew C. McConnell
STEWART & STEWART
931 South Rangeline Road
Carmel, IN 46032

2