PETITT v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: November 10, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00641
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ANITA PETITT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-00641-JPH-TAB ) JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, ) FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RICHMOND, ) CBRE INC, ) JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS INC, ) SVW INC, ) FEINKNOPF MACIOCE SCHAPPA ) ARCHITECTS INC, ) THE OSBORN ENGINEERING COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER ON JURISDICTION Plaintiff, Anita Petitt, has filed a Second Amended Complaint, dkt. 35, that does not include the required "short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The Second Amended Complaint alleges state-law negligence, and 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). The Second Amended Complaint does not address those requirements. See dkt. 35. For example, it alleges that Ms. Petitt "is a resident" of Wayne County, Indiana, but "residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction." Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009). The Second Amended Complaint also does not allege the relevant type of business entity for each defendant. See dkt. 35. If they are corporations, their citizenship is any state in which they are incorporated and the state in which they have their principal place of business, but the Second Amended Complaint does not allege that information for all defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006). 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 must assure itself of subject matter jurisdiction in every case," Boim v. American Muslims for Palestine, 9 F.4th 545, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2021). 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) ("[T]he 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 December 2, 2022, analyzing the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Date: 11/10/2022

James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

Jennifer Marie Carpenter Kopka Pinkus Dolin, P.C. jmcarpenter@kopkalaw.com

Edward A. DeVries WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP (Chicago) edward.devries@wilsonelser.com

Jessica N. Hamilton KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC (Carmel) jnhamilton@kopkalaw.com

Thomas J. Jarzyniecki, Jr. KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP (Indianapolis) tjarzyniecki@k-glaw.com

William Earl Kelley, Jr. DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP (Carmel) wkelley@dsvlaw.com

Brandon J. Kroft CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP bkroft@cassiday.com

Philip G. Rizzo Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP philip.rizzo@wilsonelser.com

Daniel Sheroff Cassiday Schade LLP dsheroff@cassiday.com

Darron S. Stewart Stewart & Stewart darron@getstewart.com

Alexander C. Trueblood O'RYAN LAW FIRM atrueblood@dsvlaw.com

Nicholas J. Wagner STEWART & STEWART nicholas@getstewart.com James M. Weck Clausen Miller P.C. jweck@clausen.com