Pronschinske Trust Dated March 21, 1995 v. Kaw Valley Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER Regarding Jurisdiction. Proof of Diversity of Citizenship due 11/28/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 11/10/2016. (kwf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PRONSCHINSKE TRUST
DATED MARCH 21, 1995,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

16-cv-640-slc

KAW VALLEY COMPANIES, INC. and
KC PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
On September 19, 2016, defendants Kaw Valley Companies, Inc. and KC Properties, LLC
filed a notice of removal in this civil diversity action for breach of contract that plaintiff Pronschinske
Trust Dated March 21, 1995 (Trust) commenced in the Circuit Court for Trempealeau County,
Wisconsin. Dkt. 1. The first question in any lawsuit is whether the court has subject matter
jurisdiction, and the court has an independent obligation to ensure that it exists. Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corporation, 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006); Avila v. Pappas, 591 F.3d 552, 553 (7th Cir. 2010). As the
party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, defendants bear the burden of demonstrating
that the requirement for complete diversity in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) is met. Appert v. Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d 609, 617 (7th Cir. 2012); Chase v. Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods,
Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). See also McCready v. EBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7 th Cir.
2006) (no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant). A review of the notice of
removal reveals that defendants’ allegations regarding citizenship for the parties are inadequate in
two respects.
First, defendants allege only that the Trust was created in the state of Wisconsin. However,
the citizenship of a trust is the citizenship of its trustee. Guar. Nat. Title Co. v. J.E.G. Associates, 101
F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996). Although the state court complaint identifies Ivan and Beverly
Pronschinske as the trustees of the Pronschinske Trust, it does not allege their citizenship. Dkt. 1,
exh. A. Second, defendants allege that KC Properties is a Kansas Corporation with its principal place

of business in Kansas City. However, the citizenship of a limited liability company is the citizenship
of each of its members. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations
omitted) (“an LLC's jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of each of its members as
of the date the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those members have members, the
citizenship of those members as well”). Neither the state court complaint nor the notice of removal
identifies the members of KC Properties.

Without the above information, the court cannot

determine whether the parties are diverse.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that defendants (who have the burden in this case) have until
November 28, 2016 to submit verification of the citizenship of the trustees and each of the members
of KC Properties (an affidavit would do). In complying with this order, defendants should keep in
mind that for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship and not the residency of a party
is what matters for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 876 (7 th Cir.
2008); Meyerson v. Harrah's East Chicago Casino, 299 F .3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). An individual
is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled, that is, where he has a “permanent home and
principal establishment, and to which [he] has the intention of returning whenever he is absent
therefrom.” Charles Alan Wright, Law of Federal Courts 161 (5th ed. 1994); see also Dakuras v. Edwards,
312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002).

Entered this 10th day of November, 2016.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2