ALERDING CASTOR HEWITT LLP v. FLETCHER et al

Filing 162

ORDER Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file jurisdictional statement by January 25, 2019, that provides the citizenship of its limited partners and any general partner. Should that statement leave the Court's jurisdiction unresolved, the Court will require the parties to conduct further investigation and file a joint jurisdictional statement regarding the underlying jurisdictional allegations before the litigation moves forward (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/11/2019. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ALERDING CASTOR HEWITT LLP,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL FLETCHER,
CAROLE WOCKNER,
Defendants.
CAROLE WOCKNER,
PAUL FLETCHER,
Counter
Claimants,

No. 1:16-cv-02453-JPH-MJD

)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
ALERDING CASTOR HEWITT LLP,
Counter
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)

WAYNE GOLOMB,
GRACEIA GOLOMB,
Miscellaneous.

ORDER
Defendants, Paul Fletcher and Carole Wockner, removed this case to this
Court after alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
Dkt. 1. For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction over the parties, the
amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
1

and the litigation must be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). When determining the citizenship of a limited partnership, “the
citizenship of all the limited partners, as well as of the general partner, counts.”
Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mkt. St.
Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Frey, 941 F.2d 588, 589 (7th Cir. 1991)).
Here, Defendants allege the parties are diverse because Defendants are
citizens of California and Plaintiff “is an Indiana limited liability partnership
with its principal office” in Indiana. Dkt. at 2. This is insufficient because, as
an LLP, Plaintiff’s citizenship is based on the citizenship of its members, not its
place of association or principle place of business.
Counsel has an obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction, Heinen
v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012), and a federal
court always has the responsibility to ensure it has jurisdiction. Hukic v.
Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court’s obligation
includes knowing the details of the underlying jurisdictional allegations. See
Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wis. Hous. and Econ. Dev. Auth., 776 F.3d 463,
465 (7th Cir. 2015) (“the parties’ united front is irrelevant since the parties
cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement…and federal courts are
obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte”).
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file jurisdictional statement by
January 25, 2019, that provides the citizenship of its limited partners and any
general partner. Should that statement leave the Court’s jurisdiction
unresolved, the Court will require the parties to conduct further investigation
2

and file a joint jurisdictional statement regarding the underlying jurisdictional
allegations before the litigation moves forward.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 1/11/2019

Distribution:

CAROLE WOCKNER
1203 E Cota Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
PAUL FLETCHER
1203 E Cota Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
Michael J. Alerding
ALERDING CASTOR LLP
[e-mail]
Michael E. Brown
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
George M. Plews
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
[e-mail]
Anthony Roach
3

ALERDING CASTOR HEWITT LLP
[e-mail]
Joanne Rouse Sommers
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
[e-mail]

4