NADZAN v. WILL

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: January 29, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00567
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JOHN NADZAN, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:19-cv-00567-JPH-DLP ) ERIC W. WILL, ) J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., ) INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER ON JURISDICTION Defendants Eric Will, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., and Insituform Technologies, LLC filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff John Nadzan then filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 14. For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest 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. For individuals, citizenship is not based on where the individual resides, but on where the individual is a citizen. Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, both the notice of removal and amended complaint identify

Defendant Insituform Technologies as an LLC. Dkt. 1 at 3; dkt. 14 at 1. But they fail to identify the LLC’s members or the citizenship of those members. See dkt. 1; dkt. 14. The amended complaint also alleges residency—rather than citizenship—of John Nadzan and Eric Will, and does not allege an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. See dkt. 14. Counsel have 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 all parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement by March 2, 2020, addressing the issues identified in this order.

The clerk shall update Defendant J.B. Transport Services, Inc. to J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. on the docket. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/29/2020 Sjamnu Patnaik Hanbore James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: Lee C. Christie CLINE FARRELL CHRISTIE LEE & BELL, PC lee@cfclb-law.com Kyle Christie CLINE FARRELL CHRISTIE LEE & BELL, PC kyle@CFCLB-law.com Keith A. Gaston CRUSER MITCHELL NOVITZ SANCHEZ & ZIMET, LLP kgaston@cmlawfirm.com Bruce D. Jones CRUSER MITCHELL NOVITZ SANCHEZ & ZIMET, LLP bjones@cmlawfirm.com Bradley M. Owen CRUSER MITCHELL NOVITZ SANCHEZ & ZIMET, LLP bowen@cmlawfirm.com Rachel O. Webster CRUSER, MITCHELL, NOVITZ, SANCHEZ, GASTON & ZIMET LLP rwebster@cmlawfirm.com