RULE v. MAINSTREET CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC et al
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 specifically identify the members of the LLC defendants and those members' citizenship. It also should specifically identify the state citizenship, not residency, of the individual parties. This jurisdictional statement is due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/13/2018.(BRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NED P. RULE,
MAINSTREET CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC,
MAINSTREET INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC,
MAINSTREET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC,
MAINSTREET HEALTH LLC,
MAINSTREET HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC,
MAINSTREET ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC,
PAUL EZEKIEL TURNER,
SCOTT FANKHAUSER, and
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 the parties. 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”).
“For diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of
its members.” Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). “Consequently, an
LLC’s jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of each of its members as of the date
the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those members have members, the citizenship
of those members as well.” Id.
The Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff was and still is a resident of the State of Colorado,
maintaining a principal residence therein.” (Filing No. 1 at 1.) Similar allegations of residency of
the three individual defendants are asserted. Id. at 3. These allegations of state residency, not
citizenship, are not sufficient to allow the Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that “Defendant Mainstreet Capital Partners LLC,
(hereafter “Mainstreet Capital”) was and still is a Limited Liability Company within the State of
Indiana, authorized to [sic] business therein.” Id. at 1. Similar allegations regarding the four other
LLC defendants are asserted. Id. at 2. However, these jurisdictional allegations do not establish
the citizenship of the LLC defendants. Alleging the identity and citizenship of each of the members
of the defendant limited liability companies is necessary for this Court to determine whether it has
Therefore, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that
establishes the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. This statement should specifically identify the
members of the LLC defendants and those members’ citizenship. It also should specifically
identify the state citizenship, not residency, of the individual parties. This jurisdictional statement
is due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry.
Lloyd J. Weinstein
THE WEINSTEIN GROUP PC
6800 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 112W
Syosset, NY 11791
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?