AIM LEASING COMPANY v. MCFARLING FOODS, INC.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: November 25, 2019
• Docket: 1:19-cv-04597
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

AIM LEASING COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:19-cv-04597-TWP-DLP ) MCFARLING FOODS, INC., ) MAC TRUCKING, LLC, ) ) Defendants. )

ENTRY ON JURISDICTION It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege all of the facts necessary to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship. However, the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of one of the Defendants. Citizenship is the operative consideration for jurisdictional purposes. See Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (“residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction”). “For diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members.” Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). “Consequently, 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.” Id. Furthermore, 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 invoke 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 for diversity purposes that is “made only upon information and belief” is unsupported). The Complaint alleges that Defendant “Mac Trucking is a limited liability company whose member(s), upon information and belief, are citizens of the State of Indiana.” (Filing No. 1| at 2.) This allegation made “upon information and belief” is not sufficient to allege the citizenship of Defendant Mac Trucking, LLC. Additionally, this allegation fails to identify the members of the limited liability company. Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Therefore, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. This statement should sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant Mac Trucking, LLC, including the identity of its members. This jurisdictional statement is due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry. SO ORDERED.

Date: 11/25/2019 Cann Latin path TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: Joseph Keith Cole BROUSE MCDOWELL jcole@brouse.com