MYR EQUIPMENT, LLC v. PLANT SITE LOGISTICS, INC. et al
ORDER - Parties are ORDERED to conduct whatever investigation is necessary and file a Third Amended Joint Jurisdictional Statement by April 21, 2017 properly setting forth Myr's citizenship. If agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a joint jurisdictional statement, competing statements must be filed by that date. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/11/2017.(JRB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MYR EQUIPMENT, LLC,
PLANT SITE LOGISTICS, INC., AM TRANS, INC.
and FULL THROTTLE TRANSPORT , LLC,
On April 7, 2017, the parties filed a Second Amended Joint Statement Regarding Jurisdiction in response to the Court’s March 31, 2017 Order. [Filing No. 17; Filing No. 21.] Despite the
Court’s clear instruction to properly address the citizenship of Plaintiff Myr Equipment, LLC
(“Myr”), [Filing No. 17 at 1], the parties have failed to provide the necessary information to determine Myr’s citizenship. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
Specifically, the parties must provide “the citizenship of all the limited partners, as well as
of the general partner” of Myr. 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) (noting the insufficiency of a limited partnership asserting that none of its partners
were citizens destroying diversity “rather than furnishing the citizenship of all of its partners so
that [the court] could determine its citizenship”). The parties have stated only that Myr is “a Delaware limited liability company doing business in…Indiana, and has its principal place of business
in Indiana.” [Filing No. 21 at 1.] Instead, the parties must provide the identity and citizenship of
each of Myr’s partners or members, as it has done for Defendant Full Throttle Transport, LLC.
[Filing No. 21 at 1-2.]
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, 670 (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). The Court must know the details of the
underlying jurisdictional allegations because parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court simply
by stipulating that it exists. See Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wisconsin Housing and Economic
Development Authority, 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”).
Accordingly, in order for the Court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over
this matter, the parties are ORDERED to conduct whatever investigation is necessary and file a
Third Amended Joint Jurisdictional Statement by April 21, 2017 properly setting forth Myr’s citizenship. If agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a joint jurisdictional statement, competing statements must be filed by that date. The Court notes that this is the fourth jurisdictional
order it has entered in this matter, and cautions the parties that the litigation will not move forward
until this issue is resolved.
Date: April 11, 2017
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?