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.

McFrederick v. Navarrete

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

June 3, 2015

ERICA MCFREDERICK, DAVID MCFREDERICK, Plaintiffs,
v.
YEIMI NAVARRETE, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge

On June 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants, asserting that this Court could exercise diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. [Filing No. 1 at 1.] Based on Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court cannot determine whether it actually has diversity jurisdiction for the reasons detailed below.

Plaintiffs allege that “the amount in controversy is in excess of $75, 000.” [Filing No. 1 at 1.] But the amount in controversy must exceed “$75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added).

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).

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to conduct whatever investigation is necessary and file an Amended Complaint by June 16, 2015, properly setting forth the basis for this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ original Complaint.


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.