CITY AUTO LLC v. FINISHMASTER INC

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: October 1, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-02552
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CITY AUTO LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 1:21-cv-02552-JMS-MJD ) FINISHMASTER INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Defendant FinishMaster Inc. removed Plaintiff City Auto LLC's action from state court in Washington to federal court on June 17, 2021, alleging that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has diversity jurisdiction over this action. [Filing No. 1.] This action was subsequently transferred from the Western District of Washington to this Court. [Filing No. 18.] Local Rule 81-1 provides: Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal, every plaintiff who has not filed a motion to remand must file a statement responding to the notice of removal’s allegations as to the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy. If the plaintiff lacks sufficient information upon which to form a belief about those allegations despite meeting and conferring in good faith with the removing party about them, the plaintiff may so state. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to comply with Local Rule 81-1 by October 15, 2021. 1 1 In addition to confirming Defendant's citizenship and the amount in controversy, Plaintiff should specifically confirm "the citizenship of all [its] limited partners, as well as of [its] general partner." Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003). Conclusory allegations regarding the citizenship of partners or members is insufficient. See Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino P’ship, 312 F.3d 318, 321 (7th Cir. 2002) ("To determine the citizenship [of an unincorporated entity] we need to know the name and citizenship(s) of its general and limited partners.") Date: 10/1/2021 Hon. Jane Maghus-Stinson, Judge ‘United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF to all counsel of record