KNAPP v. MCCREARY-WARNICK et al

Filing 21

ORDER - Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by January 23, 2019, which addresses the issue outlined in this Order and properly alleges a basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Defendants will have 21 days after the Amended Complaint is filed to file a response (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/9/2019. (DWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KATHLEEN KNAPP,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLLEEN MCCREARY-WARNICK,
PLEASANT VIEW LODGE, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-01637-JPH-TAB

ORDER
Plaintiff Kathleen Knapp has filed a Complaint in which she alleges that
this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. For the Court to have
diversity jurisdiction over the parties, the amount in controversy must exceed
“$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The “exclusive of
interest and costs” language must be included in the amount in controversy
allegation, but it is not included in the complaint. Dkt. 1.
Counsel has an 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 the responsibility to ensure it has jurisdiction, Hukic v.
Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court’s obligation
includes knowing the details of the underlying jurisdictional allegations. See
Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wis. Hous. and Econ. Dev. Auth., 776 F.3d 463,
465 (7th Cir. 2015) (“the parties’ united front is irrelevant since the parties

-1-

cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement…and federal courts are
obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte”).
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by
January 23, 2019, which addresses the issue outlined in this Order and
properly alleges a basis for this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Defendants will
have 21 days after the Amended Complaint is filed to file a response. Should
Defendants deny any of Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations or state that they do
not have sufficient information to respond to those allegations, the Court will
require the parties to conduct further investigation and file a joint jurisdictional
statement regarding the underlying jurisdictional allegations before the
litigation moves forward.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 1/9/2019

Distribution:
William J. Brinkerhoff
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C.
[e-mail]
Hannah Kaufman Joseph
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C.
[e-mail]
Richard Charles Richmond, III
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
-2-

Paul H. Sinclair
ICE MILLER LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

-3-