Phillip Jennings, et al. v. Team Line, LLC, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

PHILLIP JENNINGS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:25-cv-00591-ALT ) TEAM LINE, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On November 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this action in federal court alleging diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF 1). Subject matter jurisdiction is the first issue that must be addressed, Baker v. IBP, Inc., 357 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir. 2004), and thus, the Court raises the issue sua sponte, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint about the parties’ citizenships are inadequate to establish diversity jurisdiction. The citizenship of a limited liability company (LLC) “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs allege they are both domiciled in Georgia (ECF 1 ¶ 1), while Defendant Mohammadi is domiciled in California (id. ¶ 2). Plaintiffs also allege, as to Defendant Team Line, LLC’s domicile, “[n]o member of Team Line LLC is a citizen of state Georgia (the citizenship of the plaintiffs) or of the state of Indiana (the forum state).” (Id. ¶ 3). But the Court must be advised of the identity and citizenship of each member of an LLC for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[A] naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship is never sufficient.”). Further, for any member who is an unincorporated association such as an LLC or partnership, Plaintiffs 2 must trace such member’s citizenship through all applicable layers of ownership to ensure that no member shares a common citizenship with the other party. See Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). “Allegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057

n.1 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (collecting cases); see also Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992). The party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. See Chase v. Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Here, Plaintiffs have not yet done so. Consequently, Plaintiffs are AFFORDED to and including November 14, 2025, to file a supplemental jurisdiction statement that adequately alleges the parties’ citizenships. SO ORDERED. Entered this 7th day of November 2025.

/s/ Andrew L. Teel Andrew L. Teel United States Magistrate Judge