THE BAR PLAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANDERSON & NICHOLS et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT - Plaintiff The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company ("Bar Plan") filed its Complaint on August 21, 2014, alleging that this Court could exercise diversity jurisdiction. Because one of Bar Plan's underlyi ng jurisdictional allegations is deficient, the Court cannot confirm that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Bar Plan to file an Amended Complaint by September 4, 2014, properly alleging a basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's original complaint. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/25/2014.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

THE BAR PLAN MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANDERSON & NICHOLS,
JOHN PAUL NICHOLS,
CLIFFORD J ANDERSON,
VICKIE FENOGLIO-MOORE,
Defendants.

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

No. 2:14-cv-00255-JMS-WGH

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company (“Bar Plan”) filed its Complaint on
August 21, 2014, alleging that this Court could exercise diversity jurisdiction. [Filing No. 1.]
Because one of Bar Plan’s underlying jurisdictional allegations is deficient, the Court cannot
confirm that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action.
Bar Plan alleges that Defendant Anderson & Nichols is “a partnership organized under the
laws of Indiana, with its principal place of business in Terre Haute, Indiana.” [Filing No. 1 at 2.]
This jurisdictional allegation is insufficient because the citizenship of an unincorporated
association is “the citizenship of all the limited partners, as well as of the general partner.” Hart
v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003). “[T]he citizenship of unincorporated
associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be.”
Id. at 543. Asserting that all partners are citizens of “X” or that no partners are citizens of “X” is
insufficient. See Peters v. Astrazeneca LP, 224 Fed. Appx. 503, 505 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting the
insufficiency of a limited partnership asserting that none of its partners were citizens destroying

diversity “rather than furnishing the citizenship of all of its partners so that [the court] could
determine its citizenship”).
The Court is not being hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze
subject-matter jurisdiction, 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).
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Bar Plan to file an Amended Complaint
by September 4, 2014, properly alleging a basis for this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Defendants
need not answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s original complaint.

Dated: 8/25/14

Distribution:
Philip Edward Kalamaros
HUNT SUEDHOFF KALAMAROS
[e-mail]

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana