SMITH v. EQUITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC
Filing
6
ORDER - Shirley Smith's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 3 . Ms. Smith shall have until November 22, 2024 to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Also, Ms. Smith shall ha ve until November 22, 2024 to file a copy of the state court record that complies with Local Rule 81-2. Failure to respond will result in this suit being remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, the clerk is directed to docket Equity Property Management, LLC as the plaintiff and Ms. Smith as the defendant in this case. (See Order.) Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/23/2024. Copy to Defendant via US mail. (JSR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SHIRLEY SMITH,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
EQUITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, )
)
Defendant.
)
No. 1:24-cv-01751-JPH-KMB
ORDER
I.
Granting in forma pauperis status
Shirley Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt.
[3]; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). While in forma pauperis status allows Ms. Smith
to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, she remains liable for the full fees.
Rosas v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, 748 F. App'x 64, 65 (7th Cir.
2019) ("Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court may allow a litigant to
proceed 'without prepayment of fees,' . . . but not without ever paying fees.").
No payment is due at this time.
II.
Order to show cause
Ms. Smith removed this case from Bartholomew Superior Court. Dkt. 1.
It appears that this underlying case is an eviction action in which she is the
defendant. Because it does not appear that the Court has jurisdiction over this
suit, Ms. Smith shall have until November 22, 2024 to show cause why the
case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to file
1
a copy of the state court record that complies with Local Rule 81-2.
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, so "district courts may not
exercise jurisdiction absent a statutory basis." Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v.
Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019). Congress granted federal courts a
statutory basis for jurisdiction primarily over two types of cases: cases "arising
under" federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and cases where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the
parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). "These jurisdictional grants are known as
'federal-question jurisdiction' and 'diversity jurisdiction,' respectively." Home
Depot, 139 S. Ct. at 1746.
Ms. Smith alleges both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Id. at
1–2. Ms. Smith states that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because
"the state court's failure to address [her] equitable interest in the lease and
property" at issue deprived her of her Fifth Amendment due process rights, and
because of the "Department of Justice's ongoing civil antitrust lawsuit against
RealPage, Inc." Id. at 1. She also alleges that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction because she "is a resident of Indiana," Equity Property
Management, LLC "is a limited liability company incorporated and
headquartered in Illinois," and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id.
When a case is removed to federal court, however, jurisdiction is
determined "by looking at the complaint as it existed at the time the petition for
removal was filed." United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Metro. Hum. Rels.
Comm’n, 24 F.3d 1008, 1014 (7th Cir. 1994). "[F]ederal courts should interpret
2
the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubt in favor of the plaintiff's
choice of forum in state court." Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers Inc., 577 F.3d
752 (7th Cir. 2009). If at any time the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
"the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
To start, Ms. Smith did not file a copy of the state court record as
required by the local rules. S.D. Ind. L.R. 81-2. Without the state court
record, including a copy of the original complaint, the Court cannot determine
whether there is subject matter jurisdiction. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.,
24 F.3d at 1014. But even if Ms. Smith provides a copy of the original
complaint, it is unlikely that the Court will have subject matter jurisdiction
over her claim.
With respect to federal question jurisdiction, the underlying dispute is an
eviction action—it is unlikely that Equity Property Management's original
complaint itself alleges any violation of federal law or the federal constitution.
28 U.S.C. § 1331. While Ms. Smith, the defendant here, argues that the
eviction proceedings involve federal due process, civil rights, and antitrust
violations, see dkt. 1 at 1–2, the fact that a defendant may raise "a potential
federal defense" in response to a plaintiff's state law complaint "is not enough
to create federal jurisdiction under § 1331." Chi. Tribune, 680 F.3d at 1003.
With respect to diversity jurisdiction, the information in the petition for
removal is insufficient to establish diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For
diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship of an individual is not based on
where the individual resides, but on where the individual is a citizen. Hunter v.
3
Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009). And "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). For LLCs, parties must "work back through the
ownership structure until [reaching] either individual human beings or a
formal corporation with a state of incorporation and a state of principal place of
business." Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2017);
Thomas, 487 F.3d at 534. Here, Ms. Smith's petition for removal only states
where she resides—not where she is a citizen. Dkt. 1 at 1. And Ms. Smith only
states where Equity Property Management, LLC is registered and where its
principal place of business is—not the underlying citizenship of each of its
members. Id. Therefore, Ms. Smith has not provided information sufficient to
establish diversity jurisdiction.
Because the "party seeking removal has the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction," Schur, 577 F.3d at 758, Ms. Smith shall have until
November 22, 2024 to show cause why this case should not be remanded for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Also, Ms. Smith shall have until November
22, 2024 to file a copy of the state court record that complies with Local
Rule 81-2. Failure to respond will result in this suit being remanded for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Finally, the clerk is directed to docket Equity Property Management,
LLC as the plaintiff and Ms. Smith as the defendant in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/23/2024
4
Distribution:
SHIRLEY SMITH
3263 North Country Brook Court
Columbus, IN 47201
5
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?