NATIONAL ASSET CONSULTANTS LLC v. MIDWEST HOLDINGS-INDIANAPOLIS, LLC et al

Filing 8

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 tha t this Court has jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship. However, the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant F.C. Tucker Company, Inc. Citizenship is the operative consideration for jurisdictional purposes. t he Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This statement should specifically identify principal place of business of Defendant F.C. Tucker Company, Inc. This jurisdictional statement is due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/30/2018.(NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
NATIONAL ASSET CONSULTANTS LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
MIDWEST HOLDINGS-INDIANAPOLIS, LLC, )
F.C. TUCKER COMPANY, INC.,
)
SARI MANDRESH, DAVID HENNESSY,
)
and VICKIE YASER,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 1:18-cv-01616-TWP-DML

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 F.C. Tucker Company, Inc.
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”).
The citizenship of a corporation is “both the state of incorporation and the state in which
the corporation has its principal place of business.” Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kuhns, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 138262, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 30, 2011). Thus, the complaint or notice of removal must
allege both the state of incorporation and the state of the party’s principal place of business. Illinois
v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 677 F.2d 571, 578 n.13 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Complaint alleges that “F.C. Tucker Company, Inc. is a for profit corporation, whose
state of incorporation is Indiana. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), F.C. Tucker Company, Inc.

is a citizen of the state of Indiana as Indiana is its state of incorporation.” (Filing No. 1 at 2.) These
allegations are insufficient because they fail to identify the principal place of business of Defendant
F.C. Tucker Company, Inc., and that information is necessary for the Court to determine whether
it has jurisdiction.
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
principal place of business of Defendant F.C. Tucker Company, Inc. This jurisdictional statement
is due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry.
SO ORDERED.

Date:

5/30/2018

Distribution:
Andrew A. Ault
AULT LAW OFFICE, LLC
[e-mail]

2