DAVIS v. SUTHERLAND et al

Filing 9

ORDER - The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint on or before February 8, 2013, which addresses the jurisdictional concerns. Defendants need not respond to the Complaint, 1 , but rather shall timely respond to the Amended Complaint once it is filed. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/3/2013.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
STEVEN LEON DAVIS, individually and as
personal representative of the Estate of Mary
Alice Davis, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM RYAN SUTHERLAND, M.D., ASSOCIATED PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS CLINIC,
LLC d/b/a AP&S CLINIC, HIRISADARAHALLY
NAGARAJA, M.D., AND UNION HOSPITAL,
INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00373-JMS-WGH

ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Leon Davis, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of
Mary Alice Davis, filed a Complaint for Damages on December 21, 2012 in which he asserts
state law claims against Defendants William Ryan Sutherland, M.D. (“Dr. Sutherland”), Associated Physicians & Surgeons Clinic, LLC d/b/a AP&S Clinic (“Associated”), Hirisadarahally Nagaraja, M.D. (“Dr. Nagaraja”), and Union Hospital, Inc. (“Union”). [Dkt. 1.] Mr. Davis alleges
that: (1) he is a resident of Illinois, [id. at 1, ¶ 1]; (2) Dr. Sutherland is a resident of Kentucky,
[id. at 1, ¶ 2]; (3) Dr. Nagaraja is a resident of Indiana, [id.]; (4) Associated is a “domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business in Indiana,” [id.]; and (5) Union is a
“domestic corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana,” [id.]. The Complaint is
silent regarding the amount in controversy.
The Court must independently determine whether proper diversity among the parties exists. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). The Court is not being
hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction,

-1-

Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012), and a federal court always
has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420,
427 (7th Cir. 2009). Based on Mr. Davis’ Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether it can
exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case.
Specifically, Plaintiffs are reminded that: (1) an allegation of residency is inadequate to
establish diversity jurisdiction, McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 653 (7th Cir.
1998); (2) residency and citizenship are not the same, and it is the latter that matters for purposes
of diversity, Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); (3)
the legal representative of an estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the
same state as the decedent, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), but it is still necessary to know the representative’s state of citizenship if he also brings individual claims; (4) a corporation has two places of citizenship: where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business, Smoot
v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006); (5) a limited liability company’s citizenship includes every state of which any unit holder is a citizen, Copeland v. Penske
Logistics LLC, 675 F.3d 1040, 1043 (7th Cir. 2012); (6) it is insufficient for a party to generically allege that another party is not a citizen of a state, Guaranty Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs.,
101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996); (7) the amount in controversy must exceed “$75,000 exclusive
of interest and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added); and (8) although a plaintiff may aggregate the amounts against defendants to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement if the
defendants are jointly liable, a plaintiff must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement
against each individual defendant if the defendants are severally liable, LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enters., 533 F.3d 542, 548 (7th Cir. 2008).

-2-

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint on or before February 8,
2013, which addresses the jurisdictional concerns noted above. Defendants need not respond to
the Complaint, [dkt. 1], but rather shall timely respond to the Amended Complaint once it is
filed.
01/03/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
Jerry Avan Garau
GARAU GERMANO HANLEY & PENNINGTON, P.C.
[e-mail]
Deborah K. Pennington
GARAU GERMANO HANLEY & PENNINGTON, P.C.
[e-mail]

-3-