MCBRIDE v. C&J CLARK AMERICA, INC. et al

Filing 13

ORDER - In order for the Court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter, the Removing Defendants are ORDERED to file a Report by April 28, 2017 explaining the inconsistency between the Amended Notice of Removal and the Answ er, or file an Amended Answer by that same date correcting the inconsistency. The Removing Defendants need not seek leave of Court before filing an Amended Answer. As the Court has previously cautioned, to the extent statements in pleadings reflect anything other than total agreement regarding any jurisdictional allegations, the Court will require the parties to clarify those inconsistencies before the litigation moves forward. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/21/2017.(JRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PAMELA MCBRIDE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C&J CLARK AMERICA, INC., C&J CLARK
MANUFACTURING, INC., C&J CLARK RETAIL,
INC., AND C&J CLARK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:17-cv-01156-JMS-TAB

ORDER
On April 19, 2017, in response to the Court’s April 13, 2017 Order, Defendants C&J Clark
America, Inc., C&J Clark Manufacturing, Inc., and C&J Clark Retail, Inc. (the “Removing Defendants”) filed an Amended Notice of Removal alleging that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
over this matter. [Filing No. 9.] The same day, the Removing Defendants filed an Answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Filing No. 10.] The Answer contradicts information provided in the
Amended Notice of Removal, which requires clarification before this matter can proceed.
Specifically, the Removing Defendants state in the Amended Notice of Removal that “Defendant C&J Clark International Limited is a foreign company. C&J Clark International Limited
was organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and has a principal place of business in the
United Kingdom. A ‘Limited’ company in the United Kingdom is akin to a corporation in the
United States, and thus C&J Clark International Limited is a citizen of the United Kingdom.”
[Filing No. 9 at 2-3.] In their Answer, however, the Removing Defendants state that they “lack
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of” Plaintiff’s allegation that
C&J Clark International Limited is “a foreign company organized under the laws of the United

-1 -

Kingdom….” [Filing No. 9-2 at 13; Filing No. 10 at 1.] This inconsistency leaves the Court
unable to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
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 Removing Defendants are ORDERED to file a Report by April 28, 2017 explaining the inconsistency between the Amended Notice of Removal and the Answer, or file an
Amended Answer by that same date correcting the inconsistency. 1 The Removing Defendants
need not seek leave of Court before filing an Amended Answer. As the Court has previously

1

The Court notes that the Removing Defendants also deny allegations regarding the location of
their “headquarters” and the “residency” of Plaintiff. Plaintiff originally filed her Complaint in
State Court, so her allegations did not address whether this Court has jurisdiction over her claims.
For example, she alleges her “residency” rather than her “citizenship,” and the Removing Defendants’ “headquarters” rather than their “principal places of business” – the latter of which is needed
in both instances to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Removing Defendants’ denial of State Court allegations that do not implicate the diversity jurisdiction analysis
is of no moment. The Removing Defendants’ answer to allegations regarding C&J Clark International Limited is relevant to the Court’s jurisdictional analysis, however, because it directly contradicts statements made in the Amended Notice of Removal.
-2 -

cautioned, to the extent statements in pleadings reflect anything other than total agreement regarding any jurisdictional allegations, the Court will require the parties to clarify those inconsistencies
before the litigation moves forward.

Date: April 21, 2017

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

-3 -