FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al
ORDER - The parties are ORDERED to conduct whatever investigation is necessary and file a joint jurisdictional statement by April 21, 2017 properly setting forth each party's citizenship1 and whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,00 0, exclusive of interest and costs. If agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a joint jurisdictional statement, competing statements must be filed by that date. The filing of the joint jurisdictional statement satisfies Federal's obligations under Local Rule 81-1. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/11/2017.(JRB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee
of the City of Muncie, Indiana,
DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC and
WESTERN STAR TRUCKS, INC.,
On February 23, 2017, Defendants Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (“Daimler”) and
Western Star Trucks, Inc. (“Western”) removed this case to this Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. [Filing No. 1.] The following day, the Court ordered Defendants to file an Amended
Notice of Removal to address several issues, [Filing No. 7], and Defendants did so on March 6,
2017, [Filing No. 10]. Federal then filed an Amended Complaint on April 3, 2017, [Filing No.
19], and Defendants filed their Answer on April 6, 2017, [Filing No. 21]. In their Amended Complaint, Federal does not set forth adequate jurisdictional allegations and, further, Defendants deny
some of those jurisdictional allegations. This leaves the Court unable to determine whether the
facts upon which diversity jurisdiction is based are disputed. Specifically:
Federal alleges that it is “an insurance company duly organized under the laws
of the State of Indiana,” with its principal place of business in Indiana. [Filing
No. 19 at 1.] Defendants state in their Answer that they “lack knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this
paragraph and therefore deny them.” [Filing No. 21 at 1.] Accordingly, the
Court cannot determine whether the parties dispute Federal’s citizenship.
Federal alleges that Daimler is “a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located…[in] Oregon….” [Filing No. 19 at 1-2.] Daimler’s full name is set forth
as Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, and “LLC” denotes a limited liability
company, not a corporation. The parties must confer regarding whether Daimler is a corporation or a limited liability company. If Daimler is a limited liability company, the parties must provide “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) (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
In its Amended Complaint, Federal does not properly allege the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy must exceed “$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The “exclusive of interest and costs” language must be included in the amount in controversy allegation.
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
joint jurisdictional statement by April 21, 2017 properly setting forth each party’s citizenship 1 and
The parties must also address the citizenship of the City of Muncie, since Federal alleges it is a
partial subrogee of that entity.
whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. In the joint
jurisdictional statement, the parties must also address whether Federal is a mutual insurance company and, if so, properly set forth its citizenship keeping in mind that the citizenship of a mutual
insurance company turns on the corporate form it is considered to be by applicable state law. See
Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Country Life Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 548, 551 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting that
Texas law rendered Texas mutual insurance company an unincorporated association while Minnesota law rendered Minnesota mutual insurance company a corporation).
If agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a joint jurisdictional statement, competing statements must be filed by that date. The filing of the joint jurisdictional statement satisfies
Federal’s obligations under Local Rule 81-1.
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?