RLI INSURANCE COMPANY v. DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC et al

Filing 7

ENTRY ON JURISDICTION - The Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This statement should identify the citizenship of Defendant Driver Holdings LLC. This jurisdictional statement is due ten (10) days from the date of this Entry. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/13/2017. (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RLI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC,
DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-04155-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON JURISDICTION
It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege all of the facts
necessary to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The
Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship. However,
the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant Driver Holdings LLC.
Citizenship is the operative consideration for jurisdictional purposes. See Meyerson v. Harrah’s
East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (“residence and citizenship are not
synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction”). Furthermore,
jurisdictional allegations must be made on personal knowledge, not on information and belief, to
invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court. See America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns
of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (only a statement about jurisdiction “made
on personal knowledge has any value,” and a statement made “‘to the best of my knowledge and
belief’ is insufficient” to invoke diversity jurisdiction “because it says nothing about citizenship”);
Page v. Wright, 116 F.2d 449, 451 (7th Cir. 1940) (an allegation of a party’s citizenship for
diversity purposes that is “made only upon information and belief” is unsupported).

The Complaint alleges that the three individual members of Defendant Driver Holdings
LLC are citizens of Indiana “[u]pon information and belief.” (Filing No. 1 at 3, ¶¶7–9.) This
allegation made upon information and belief is not sufficient to allow the Court to determine
whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that
establishes the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. This statement should identify the citizenship of
Defendant Driver Holdings LLC. This jurisdictional statement is due ten (10) days from the date
of this Entry.
SO ORDERED.

Date:

11/13/2017

Distribution:
Scott A. Harkness
NORRIS CHOPLIN & SCHROEDER LLP
[e-mail]
Bradley J. Wombles
NORRIS CHOPLIN & SCHROEDER
[e-mail]

2