R & R PRODUCTS, INC. v. SECURA INSURANCE

Filing 14

ORDER - The Court again ORDERS the parties to file a Joint Jurisdictional Statement by May 3, 2017 which properly sets forth the citizenship of each party and the amount in controversy. If agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a Joint Jurisdictional Statement, competing statements must be filed by that date. The filing of a Joint Jurisdictional Statement shall satisfy Plaintiff's obligations under Local Rule 81-1. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/25/2017.(JRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
R & R PRODUCTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SECURA INSURANCE, A Mutual Company,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:17-cv-00787-JMS-DML

ORDER
On April 13, 2017, the Court ordered the parties in this matter to file a Joint Jurisdictional
Statement “properly setting forth the citizenship of each party and the amount in controversy.”
[Filing No. 11 at 2.] On April 21, 2017, Defendant SECURA Insurance (“Secura”) filed a Second
Supplemental Statement of Jurisdiction. [Filing No. 13.] While the Statement provides adequate
information regarding SECURA’s citizenship, it was filed only by SECURA and so is not a “Joint
Jurisdictional Statement.” Additionally, it does not set forth the citizenship of Plaintiff nor the
amount in controversy.
The purpose of the Joint Jurisdictional Statement is so that the Court can ascertain whether
the parties agree regarding jurisdictional allegations. Because SECURA’s Statement only sets
forth its own citizenship, and since Plaintiff has not filed anything in response to the Court’s April
13, 2017 Order, the Court again ORDERS the parties to file a Joint Jurisdictional Statement by
May 3, 2017 which properly sets forth the citizenship of each party and the amount in controversy.
If agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a Joint Jurisdictional Statement, competing
statements must be filed by that date. The filing of a Joint Jurisdictional Statement shall satisfy
Plaintiff’s obligations under Local Rule 81-1.

-1-

The Court cautions the parties to review Court orders carefully, and to ensure that they are
providing the information required. The Court also reminds the parties that future statements in
filings that contradict the parties’ representations in the Joint Jurisdictional Statement will prompt
the Court to require further action to correct, clarify, or explain those inconsistencies. Accordingly, such statements should not be made without thorough investigation.

Date: April 25, 2017

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

-2-