Injection Molding Solutions, Inc. v. ACC Plastics Machinery, LLC

Filing 4

ORDER Regarding Jurisdiction. Proof of Diversity of Citizenship due 4/26/2017. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/12/17. (jat)

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

INJECTION MOLDING SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

17-cv-276-wmc

ACC PLASTICS MACHINERY, LLC,
Defendant.

In this civil action, plaintiff Injection Molding Solutions, Inc., alleges that defendant
ACC Plastics Machinery, LLC, breached a sales contract and either negligently or
intentionally misrepresented the condition of the purchased machine, among other state
law claims. (Compl. (dkt. #1).) Plaintiff alleges that this court may exercise diversity
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Id. at ¶ 4.) Because the
allegations in the complaint are insufficient to determine whether diversity jurisdiction
actually exists, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint
containing the necessary allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction.

OPINION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs,
Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Unless
a complaint alleges complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000, or raises a federal question, the case must be dismissed for

1

want of jurisdiction. Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th
Cir. 2009). Because jurisdiction is limited, federal courts “have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010).

The party seeking to invoke federal

jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is present. Smart, 562 F.3d
at 802-03.
Here, plaintiff contends that diversity jurisdiction exists because (1) the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and (2) the parties are diverse. (Compl. (dkt. #1) ¶ 4.) For
the latter to be true, however, there must be complete diversity, meaning that “there is no
plaintiff and no defendant who are citizens of the same State.” Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht,
524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998). Since “the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of
its members,” plaintiff has not alleged sufficient information to determine whether
complete diversity exists here. Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992
(7th Cir. 2007). Indeed, plaintiff’s complaint lacks any allegations regarding the names or
the citizenship of any of defendant’s members.
Instead, plaintiff alleges defendant is a “limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business
located at 48 West Shore Road, Mountain Lakes, NJ 07046.” (Compl. (dkt. #1) ¶ 2.)
The Seventh Circuit instructs, however, that this information is wholly irrelevant in
deciding the citizenship of a limited liability company. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv., 588 F.3d
420, 429 (7th Cir. 2009).

2

Before dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff will be
given leave to file within 14 days an amended complaint which establishes subject matter
jurisdiction by alleging the names and citizenship of each of defendant’s members. In
alleging the LLC’s citizenship, plaintiff should be aware that if the member or members of
the LLCs are themselves a limited liability company, partnership, or other similar entity,
then the citizenship of those members and partners must also be alleged as well: “the
citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers of
partners or members there may be.” Meryerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616,
617 (7th Cir. 2002).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) plaintiff shall have until April 26, 2017, 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 12th day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3