MCNUTT et al v. THE HOME CITY ICE COMPANY et al

Filing 16

ORDER of the Court that all parties 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 jurisd ictional statement by Steptember 4, 2013, setting forth the basis for each of their citizenships and whehter 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 statmenet by September 4, 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 8/19/2013.(NMT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
DOROTHY M. MCNUTT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE HOME CITY ICE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:13-cv-151-JMS-WGH

ORDER
Defendant Schnuck Markets, Inc. (“Schnuck”) filed an Amended Notice of Removal on
July 19, 2013. [Dkt. 10.] On August 16, 2013, Plaintiffs Dorothy and John McNutt filed their
Response to Amended Notice of Removal pursuant to Local Rule 81-1. [Dkt. 15.] In their Response, the McNutts stated that: (1) they are citizens of Indiana, [id. at 1, ¶ 1]; (2) “[t]o the best
of the information and belief of the plaintiffs,…[Schnuck] is a Missouri corporation with its
principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri,” [id. at 1, ¶ 2]; (3) “[t]o the best of the information and belief of the plaintiffs,…Home City Ice Company (“Home”) is an Ohio corporation
with a principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio,” [id. at 1, ¶ 3]; and (4) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, [id. at 1, ¶ 4].
As stated in the Court’s July 15, 2013 Order to File Amended Notice of Removal, jurisdictional allegations must be made on personal knowledge, not on information and belief, to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court. See America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns
of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (only a statement about jurisdiction “made
on personal knowledge has any value” and a statement made “‘to the best of my knowledge and
belief’ is insufficient” to engage diversity jurisdiction “because it says nothing about citizenship”); Page v. Wright, 116 F.2d 449, 451 (7th Cir. 1940) (an allegation of a party’s citizenship

-1-

for diversity purposes that is “made only upon information and belief” is unsupported). Accordingly, the McNutts’ statements regarding the citizenships of Schnuck and Home are inadequate,
because they are made “[t]o the best of the information and belief of the plaintiffs.” Additionally, the Court notes that the McNutts stated in their Response that Home has “a” principal place of
business in Ohio. [Dkt. 15 at 1, ¶ 3.] But a corporation only has one principal place of business.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 79 (2010) (28 U.S.C. § 1332’s reference to “principal place
of business” is “singular, not plural”).
The Court ORDERS all of 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 September
4, 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 September 4, 2013 setting forth its view regarding the
citizenship of each of the parties and the amount in controversy.
08/19/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
Steven K. Hahn
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
[e-mail]
Ross E. Rudolph
RUDOLPH FINE PORTER & JOHNSON
[e-mail]

-2-

Patrick A. Shoulders
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
[e-mail]
Stephen Hensleigh Thomas
GERLING LAW OFFICES
[e-mail]

-3-