BIRT et al v. THE MARTIN BROWER COMPANY, LLC et al

Filing 18

CLOSED REMANDED to STATE COURT - ORDER. Based on a desire to protect privacy interests of individual members of the nine LLC members, the Defendants requested remand rather than disclosing the identity and citizenship of the nine LLCs' member s. Without these jurisdictional allegations, the Court is unable to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this case. The Defendants' motion to be released from the obligation to identify the individual members of the nine LLC entities, i s thus DENIED. The Defendants' alternative motion for remand to the state court of origin is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the state court of origin. The Clerk is DIRECTED to the remand this action to Decatur County Circuit Court, Indiana, cause no. 16C01-1605-CT-216. This action is hereby CLOSED. Copy to Decatur County Circuit Court via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/20/2016.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
COLBY BIRT and
BRITTANY BIRT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DALE HALL and
THE MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:16-cv-02002-TWP-DML

ORDER
This cause having come before the Court on Defendants, DALE HALL and THE
MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY, L.L.C.’s Motion to Be Released from Obligation to Identify
Individual Names of Nonparties or, In The Alternative, for Remand (Filing No. 14), and the Court
being duly advised in the premises grants in part and denies in part the Motion:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and in order to determine whether diversity
jurisdiction exists, “an LLC’s jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of each of its
members as of the date the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those members have
members, the citizenship of those members as well,” because “[f]or diversity jurisdiction purposes,
the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members.” Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC,
487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007).
Furthermore, “[n]o court may decide a case without subject-matter jurisdiction, and neither
the parties nor their lawyers may stipulate to jurisdiction or waive arguments that the court lacks
jurisdiction. If the parties neglect the subject, a court must raise jurisdictional questions itself.”
United States v. County of Cook, 167 F.3d 381, 387 (7th Cir. 1999).

Based on a desire to protect privacy interests of individual members of the nine LLC
members, the Defendants requested remand rather than disclosing the identity and citizenship of
the nine LLCs’ members. Without these jurisdictional allegations, the Court is unable to determine
whether it has jurisdiction over this case. The Defendants’ motion to be released from the
obligation to identify the individual members of the nine LLC entities, is thus DENIED.
The Defendants’ alternative motion for remand to the state court of origin is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the state court of origin.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to the remand this action to Decatur County Circuit Court,
Indiana, cause no. 16C01-1605-CT-216. This action is hereby CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/20/2016
Distribution:
Decatur County Circuit Court
150 Courthouse Square
Greensburg, IN 47240

Roy T. Tabor
TABOR LAW FIRM LLP
[e-mail]

Renee J. Mortimer
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
[e-mail]

Carol A. Townsend
TABOR LAW FIRM, LLP
[e-mail]

Edward W. Hearn
JOHNSON & BELL, PC
[e-mail]

2