Advance Cable Company, LLC et al v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company
Filing
12
ORDER Regarding Jurisdiction. Proof of Diversity Citizenship due 5/20/2013. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/6/13. (rep)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ADVANCE CABLE COMPANY, LLC, and
PINEHURST COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
13-cv-229-wmc
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
This is a civil action for breach of contract and insurance bad faith under state
law. As the basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs cite to 42 U.S.C. § 1332, the federal
diversity jurisdiction statute, but fail to allege facts sufficient to establish diversity
jurisdiction.
Diversity jurisdiction is present when a complaint alleges complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
42
U.S.C. § 1332. According to the complaint, the contract claim alone is “in excess of
$300,000,” satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. (Compl., dkt. #1, ¶28.)
Unfortunately, as currently pled, the complaint only indicates that defendant The
Cincinnati Insurance Company is a “foreign corporation whose principal place of
business is [in] . . . Ohio” and provides no material information as to the citizenship of
plaintiffs -- both LLCs.
The complaint mistakenly assumes that the location of the
principle office of an LLC is determinative for jurisdictional citizenship purposes. On the
contrary, “[t]he citizenship of an LLC for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is the
citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998)
1
(emphasis added). Plaintiffs must allege the citizenship of each of their members, and
must also allege the state of incorporation of The Cincinnati Insurance Company.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) plaintiff shall have until May 20, 2013, to file and serve an amended
complaint containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete
diversity of citizenship for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and
2) failure to amend timely shall result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 6th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
2
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?