Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anton Realty, LLC v. Guardian Brokers Ltd., Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

January 29, 2015

ANTON REALTY, LLC and ANDY MOHR TRUCK CENTER, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
GUARDIAN BROKERS LTD., INC. and NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, NA, Defendants.

ORDER

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

On November 18, 2014, Plaintiffs Anton Realty, LLC ("Anton Realty") and Andy Mohr Truck Center, Inc. ("Andy Mohr") filed a Third Amended Complaint against Guardian Brokers Ltd., Inc. ("Guardian") and National Bank of Commerce, N.A. ("National"). [Filing No. 87.][1] While the Third Amended Complaint properly alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction, Guardian's Answer, [Filing No. 104], creates issues that the Court must resolve before it can determine whether that is the case.

The Court is not being hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction, Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012), and a federal court always has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). Specifically, Guardian states in its Answer that it is "without sufficient knowledge or information with which to admit or deny" Plaintiffs' allegations that Andy Mohr is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana, and "lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny" allegations that National is a national banking association which has its main office in Alabama. [Filing No. 104 at 1; see also Filing No. 87 at 1.] Because of this discrepancy, the Court cannot determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement[2] by February 6, 2015, properly detailing the citizenship of each party and whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, along the lines set forth in this Order. If the parties cannot agree on the contents of a joint statement, competing statements must be filed by that date.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.