LRM HOLDINGS, INC. v. COMPUTER SUPPORT, INC.

Filing 32

ORDER - Based on CSI's Answer to LRM's Third Amended Complaint, the Courtcannot determine whether it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case.The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, and conduct whatever investigation nece ssary, to determine whether this Court has diversity jurisdiction. If the parties agree that diversity jurisdiction is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by November 25, 2013 setting forth the basis for each of their citizenship s and whether they agree that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. If the parties cannot agree on their respective citizenships or the amount in controversy, any party who disagrees shall file a separate jurisdictional statement by November 25, 2013 setting forth its view regarding the citizenship of each of the parties and the amount in controversy. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/15/2013.(NRN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
LRM HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMPUTER SUPPORT, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:13-cv-146-JMS-WGH

ORDER
On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff LRM Holdings, Inc. (“LRM”) filed a Third Amended
Complaint against Defendant Computer Support, Inc. (“CSI”) alleging that diversity jurisdiction
exists over this matter. [Dkt. 21 at 1, ¶ 3.] LRM alleges that: (1) it is an Indiana corporation
with its principal place of business in Indiana, [id. at 1, ¶ 1]; (2) CSI is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, [id. at 1, ¶ 2]; and (3) “[j]urisdiction is
proper under 28 USC § 1332(a) as there is complete diversity among the parties and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,” [id. at 1, ¶ 3].
CSI has answered the Third Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 31.] In its Answer, CSI admits
its citizenship and the citizenship of LRM but, as to the allegations that jurisdiction is proper because there is complete diversity among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, it states “[t]he averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary,
the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.”
[id. at 1, ¶¶ 1-3].
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

-1-

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). Based on CSI’s Answer to LRM’s Third Amended Complaint, the Court
cannot determine whether it can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case.
The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, and conduct whatever investigation
necessary, to determine whether this Court has diversity jurisdiction. If the parties agree that diversity jurisdiction is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by November 25,
2013 setting forth the basis for each of their citizenships and whether they agree that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. If the parties cannot agree on
their respective citizenships or the amount in controversy, any party who disagrees shall file a
separate jurisdictional statement by November 25, 2013 setting forth its view regarding the citizenship of each of the parties and the amount in controversy.

11/15/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
Christopher D. Lee
KAHN DEES DONOVAN & KAHN
[e-mail]
John R. Martin
RHOADS & SINON LLP
[e-mail]
Todd J. Shill
RHOADS & SINON LLP
[e-mail]

-2-

Kevin Morris Toner
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP - Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Crystal Spivey Wildeman
KAHN DEES DONOVAN & KAHN
[e-mail]

-3-