BETTS v. BROWN

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-02197
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

SHAKYLA BETTS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-02197-JMS-MG ) ARMOND BROWN, ) RUAN TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ) SYSTEMS, INC., ) PRAXAIR, INC. a/k/a LINDE, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Defendants have filed a Notice of Removal in which they allege that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. [Filing No. 1 at 2.] Praxair, Inc. a/k/a Linde Inc., and Ruan Transportation Management Systems, Inc. have each filed a Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, but neither provides the party's citizenship. [Filing No. 7; Filing No. 10]. Further, defendant Armond Brown has not filed any Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. Although Mr. Brown is not himself a corporate party, Rule 7.1 still requires him to file a disclosure statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) provides: In an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), a party or intervenor must, unless the court orders otherwise, file a disclosure statement. The statement must name – and identify the citizenship of – every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor:

(A) when the action is filed in or removed to federal court, and

(B) when any later event occurs that could affect the court's jurisdiction under §1332(a). Each defendant must submit a new Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. The defendants are reminded that an individual's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction "is the place one intends to remain." Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002). And a corporation is deemed a citizen of any state where it 1s incorporated and a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see also Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006) (a corporation has two places of citizenship: where it 1s incorporated and where it has its principal place of business). Each corporate defendant must provide both in order for the Court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

Each defendant is ORDERED to file an Amended Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement by January 21, 2025, which adequately sets forth that party's citizenship.

Date: 1/2/2025 ~ ant Mona Sta (Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Distribution:

Reginald B. Bishop THE BISHOP LAW FIRM rbishop@thebishoplawfirm.law

Kyle Joseph Farris JOHNSON & BELL farrisk@jbltd.com

Edward W. Hearn JOHNSON & BELL, PC (Crown Point) hearne@jbltd.com