ANGI Energy Systems, LLC v. Groetken, Joshua
ORDER for plaintiff to make jurisdictional showing by December 4, 2015. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/20/2015. (mfh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANGI ENERGY SYSTEMS, LLC,
In this civil action, plaintiff ANGI Energy, LLC asserts various Wisconsin state
law claims against defendant Joshua Groetken. (Compl. (dkt. #1).)
failed answer the complaint, the clerk’s office entered default pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(a) (dkt. #8) and scheduled the case for a hearing on plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment on December 9, 2015. In advance of that hearing, the court will
require plaintiff to submit a declaration and any necessary support establishing: (1) its
citizenship (more specifically, the citizenship of its sole member, Gilbarco, Inc.); and (2)
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Without that supplemental
information, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a).
As to the first subject, plaintiff has not adequately alleged its own citizenship,
stating simply that it is “an Indiana limited liability company, whose sole member is
Gilbarco, Inc., a Delaware corporation.” (Compl. (dkt. #2) ¶ 2.) Since “[t]he citizenship
of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members,” Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank,
474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007), plaintiff correctly identified its sole member, but
then failed to plead its citizenship adequately. The court assumes that in alleging that
Gilbarco is a “Delaware corporation,” plaintiff means that Gilbarco is incorporated in the
state of Delaware, thus supplying part of the information necessary to determine the
citizenship of a corporation. Of course, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) also provides that a
corporation is a citizen of “the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business,” and plaintiff failed to provide that information (unless its allegation that it is a
“Delaware corporation” was also intended to mean that its principal place of business is
located in Delaware). Given this uncertainty, the court will require plaintiff to submit a
declaration containing sufficient allegations for the court to determine the citizenship of
plaintiff ANGI Energy Systems, LLC.
The second subject -- concerning whether the amount in controversy requirement
is met -- may pose a more significant problem, given that the complaint simply alleges
that “the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”
(Compl. (dkt. #1) ¶ 4.) Given that plaintiff is now seeking a default judgment, plaintiff
should be prepared to demonstrate its damages, or at least provide some information from
which the court could discern how much money Groetken converted or stole from
See Preston v. Purtell, 410 F.2d 234, 236 (7th Cir.1969) (“A
complaint must affirmatively aver such facts as will support the existence of federal
Absent some detail on the amount of money at stake, or at least a
plausible assigned value of the relief sought, there is no basis for the court to find that the
amount in controversy requirement is met.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that on or before December 4, 2015, plaintiff
ANGI Energy Systems, LLC shall file a declaration and any supporting materials
satisfying the two areas identified above. If plaintiff fails to make the necessary showing,
the court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 20th day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
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?