THE ESTATE OF FRANKLIN LOGAN, DECEASED v. KEVIN MCISAAC SERVICES, LLC et al

Filing 16

SECOND ENTRY ON JURISDICTION - The Estate is ORDERED to file a Second Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This statement should specifically identify the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy. This second jurisdictional statement is due no later than Friday, June 21, 2024. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/5/2024.(KAA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF FRANKLIN LOGAN,
DECEASED,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN MCISAAC SERVICES, LLC,
KEVIN MCISAAC,
Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00434-TWP-MG

SECOND ENTRY ON JURISDICTION
On April 10, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff the Estate of Franklin Logan, Deceased (the
"Estate") to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement specifically identifying the citizenship of
the Estate and Defendant Kevin McIsaac Services, LLC (Filing No. 7). On May 29, 2024, the
Estate filed its Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement (Filing No. 15). The Statement identifies the
citizenship of the Estate but still fails to adequately allege the citizenship of Defendant Kevin
McIsaac Services, LLC (the "LLC"). The Statement also raises new questions about the citizenship
of Defendant Kevin McIsaac ("Mr. McIsaac").
I.

DISCUSSION

The Estate's Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement alleges:
8.
Counsel for Kevin McIsaac Services, LLC has advised Plaintiff that each of
the two members of the LLC is an Illinois resident, and that Defendant Kevin
McIsaac is one of the two members.
9.
Counsel for Kevin McIsaac Services, LLC has advised Plaintiff that the
LLC was formed in Florida.
10.
Counsel for Kevin McIsaac Services has refused to identify any additional
information about the members of Kevin McIsaac Services, LLC.

11.
Therefore, Kevin McIsaac Services, LLC is, at minimum, a citizen of the
State of Illinois.
(Filing No. 15 at 2–3). These statements fail to adequately allege the citizenship of the LLC or of
Mr. McIsaac to allow the Court to determine whether complete diversity exists.
A.

Kevin McIsaac Services, LLC
The Estate's allegation that both members of the LLC are "Illinois resident[s]" is

insufficient for two reasons. First, it fails to identify the citizenship of either member, as compared
to the members' residence. "[R]esidence and citizenship are not synonymous and it is the latter that
matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction." Meyerson v. Harrah's East Chicago Casino, 299
F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). Second, it fails to identify the LLC's members. Allegations that
unnamed members are citizens of certain states are not sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.
The Seventh Circuit has "held repeatedly that there's no such thing as a [state name here]
partnership or LLC, that only the partners' or members' citizenships matter, and that their identities
and citizenships must be revealed. We do not blithely accept assurances along the lines of 'no one
on our side is a citizen of the opposing litigant's state.'" West v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 951
F.3d 827, 830 (7th Cir. 2020) (alteration and emphasis in original) (citation omitted); see also, e.g.,
See Eures v. Havenpark Mgmt., No. 4:23-cv-184, 2024 WL 1374766 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 1, 2024) (Pratt,
C.J.); Hart v. Terminex Int'l, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003); Middlemen Serv. Pros., LLC v.
AION Mgmt., LLC, No. 23-cv-01336, 2024 WL 454975, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 6, 2024); Padilla v.
Diaz, No. 23-cv-00170, 2023 WL 9751418, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 18, 2023); Indy Car LLC v. Boston
Grand Prix, LLC, No. 16-cv-01274, 2016 WL 11694986, at *1 (S.D. Ind. June 20, 2016). "[T]he
citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers of partners
or members there may be. Failure to go through all the layers can result in dismissal for want of
jurisdiction." Meyerson, 299 F.3d at 617 (citations omitted).
2

Defense counsel's refusal to disclose further information does not excuse the Estate's failure
to adequately allege jurisdiction in its Complaint, especially because the Estate only requested
information about the LLC's members after filing its Complaint and receiving the Court's Entry on
Jurisdiction (see Filing No. 9). As the party seeking to assert this Court's jurisdiction, the Estate
carries the burden of establishing that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. It appears the Estate could
not carry that burden at the time it filed its Complaint and still cannot carry it. The Court has
previously admonished plaintiffs not to invoke diversity jurisdiction before determining whether
the parties are diverse. See Eures, 2024 WL 1374766. In the context of removal, the Court has held
that this type of "file-first-and-examine-whether-complete-diversity-exists-later" approach is
improper and unreasonable. See VPG Grp. Holdings LLC v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
PA, No. 20-cv-01505, 2020 WL 6323485, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 28, 2020); Circle Ctr. Mall LLC v.
Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 14-cv-01160, 2014 WL 4539983 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 11, 2014) ("Defendants
alleged that complete diversity was met based only on 'the investigation [Defendant] has been able
to undertake to this point.' . . . But that investigation surely was not a complete or sufficiently
thorough one, as Defendants did not know (and still do not know) the citizenship of [Plaintiff]."
(emphasis in original)). The Estate should not have initiated this action in federal court if it could
not identify the members of the LLC and their states of citizenship.
Nevertheless, because Defendants must soon identify the LLC's members anyway, the
Court will grant the Estate a final opportunity to establish this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and this Court's March 8, 2024 Notice (Filing No.
4), Defendants must file a disclosure statement naming and identifying the citizenship of every
member of the LLC. See Eures, 2024 WL 1374766 (clarifying that Rule 7.1 requires LLC parties
to disclose names of all members, and not merely members' states of citizenship). According to

3

the Court's docket, Defendants' Rule 7.1 statement should have been filed on April 17, 2024, when
defense counsel filed his appearance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b)(1) (requiring that a party file its
disclosure statement "with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response or other
request"). However, the Court expects that Defendants will file a belated Rule 7.1 disclosure
statement no later than June 14, 2024, when Defendants' answer to the Complaint is due (Filing
No. 12; Filing No. 13). The Court will therefore grant the Estate until June 21, 2024, in which to
file a Second Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement establishing the citizenship of the LLC.
B.

Kevin McIsaac
The Complaint alleges that "[a]t all times relevant herein, Kevin McIsaac was a citizen of

the State of Florida" (Filing No. 1). On its face, this allegation sufficiently alleges Mr. McIsaac's
citizenship. But the Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement alleges that Mr. McIsaac is an "Illinois
resident" (Filing No. 15). This allegation does not establish that Mr. McIsaac is a citizen of Illinois,
since residency and citizenship are not synonymous. Meyerson, 299 F.3d at 617. Yet, in light of
this new residence allegation, it is now unclear whether Mr. McIsaac is a citizen of Florida or
Illinois. The Estate's Second Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement must therefore clarify Mr.
McIsaac's state of citizenship.
II.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Estate is ORDERED to file a Second Supplemental
Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This statement
should specifically identify the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy. This
second jurisdictional statement is due no later than Friday, June 21, 2024.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/5/2024

4

Distribution:
David W. Craig
Craig Kelley and Faultless
[e-mail]
Scott Anthony Faultless
Craig, Kelley & Faultless
[e-mail]
Alan R. Trenz
Trenz & Knabe Co., LPA
[e-mail]

5