CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST v. VIGO INDUSTRIES LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) THE MIDWEST as subrogee of Lindsey ) Corrie and Shawn Bramlett, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-03264-JPH-TAB ) VIGO INDUSTRIES LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER ON JURISDICTION

Plaintiff, Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, has filed a complaint alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Dkt. 1. For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and the litigation must be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 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). For LLCs, parties must "work back through the ownership structure until [reaching] either individual human beings or a formal corporation with a state of incorporation and a state of principal place of business." Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2017); Thomas, 487 F.3d at 534. In contrast, a corporation is deemed a citizen of any state in which it is incorporated and of the state in which it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, the complaint identifies Defendant Vigo Industries, LLC as a "New Jersey corporation," see dkt. 1, and Vigo Industries admits the jurisdictional allegations contained in the complaint. The complaint also states that Citizens is a "New Hampshire company with a principal place of business [in] Massachusetts," dkt. 1, but the Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Citizens identifies it as an Indiana corporation, dkt. 3. Counsel has an obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction, Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012), and a federal court always has the responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court's obligation includes knowing the details of the underlying jurisdictional allegations. See Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wis. Hous. and Econ. Dev. Auth.,'776 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015) ("the parties' united front is irrelevant since the parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement... and federal courts are obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte"). Therefore, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement by April 1, 2021, addressing the issues identified this Order and analyzing subject-matter jurisdiction accordingly. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/3/2021 wens Patni 1 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge 2 Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

Kimbley A. Kearney CLAUSEN MILLER PC kkearney@clausen.com

Jeffrey O. Meunier jom@mandmlawyers.com