TECHNICAL YOUTH, LLC v. LEPI et al

Filing 25

SECOND ENTRY ON JURISDICTION - On March 27, 2018, the Court ordered the Defendants to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement, identifying the citizenship of each of the parties and the specific identity of the LLC parties' members and th ose members' citizenship (Filing No. 9 ). On March 29, 2018, the Defendants filed their Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement (Filing No. 13 ). Based upon the Defendants' Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement, the Court still is unable to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Therefore, the Defendants are ORDERED to file a second supplemental jurisdictional statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement is due April 16, 2018. Failure to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies may result in dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/10/2018.(NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
TECHNICAL YOUTH, LLC
d/b/a EIGHT ELEVEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KYLE LEPI, ROBERT MOYER, and
AGILITY PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-00874-TWP-TAB

SECOND ENTRY ON JURISDICTION
On March 27, 2018, the Court ordered the Defendants to file a supplemental jurisdictional
statement, identifying the citizenship of each of the parties and the specific identity of the LLC
parties’ members and those members’ citizenship (Filing No. 9).
On March 29, 2018, the Defendants filed their Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement
(Filing No. 13). However, the Statement did not identify the members of Plaintiff Technical Youth,
LLC, and those members’ citizenship. Additionally, the Defendants’ Statement failed to allege the
citizenship of Defendants Kyle Lepi and Robert Moyer as well as the citizenship of the members
of Defendant Agility Partners, LLC—namely, Adam Kutasy and Robert Moyer. Rather, the
Defendants’ Statement notes the residency of individual parties. The Court reiterates that
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”).
Based upon the Defendants’ Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement, the Court still is
unable to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Therefore, the Defendants are

ORDERED to file a second supplemental jurisdictional statement that establishes the Court’s
jurisdiction over this case. The jurisdictional statement should specifically identify the members
of Plaintiff Technical Youth, LLC and those members’ citizenship as well as the citizenship of all
the individual parties. This Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement is due April 16, 2018. Failure
to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies may result in dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.

Date:

4/10/2018

Distribution:
Sara Hutchins Jodka
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
[e-mail]
Mark Robert Molter
BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP
[e-mail]
Gregory A. Neibarger
BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP
[e-mail]

2