United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Federal Insurance Company, as subrogee of the City of Muncie, Indiana, Plaintiff,
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC and Western Star Trucks, Inc., Defendants.
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
February 23, 2017, Defendants Daimler Trucks North America,
LLC (“Daimler”) and Western Star Trucks,
Inc. (“Western”) removed this case to
this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. [Filing
No. 1.] The following day, the Court ordered Defendants to
file an Amended Notice of Removal to address several issues,
[Filing No. 7], and Defendants did so on March 6, 2017,
[Filing No. 10]. Federal then filed an Amended Complaint on
April 3, 2017, [Filing No. 19], and Defendants filed their
Answer on April 6, 2017, [Filing No. 21]. In their Amended
Complaint, Federal does not set forth adequate jurisdictional
allegations and, further, Defendants deny some of those
jurisdictional allegations. This leaves the Court unable to
determine whether the facts upon which diversity jurisdiction
is based are disputed. Specifically:
• Federal alleges that it is “an insurance company
duly organized under the laws of the State of Indiana,
” with its principal place of business in Indiana.
[Filing No. 19 at 1.] Defendants state in their Answer that
they “lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph
and therefore deny them.” [Filing No. 21 at 1.]
Accordingly, the Court cannot determine whether the parties
dispute Federal's citizenship.
• Federal alleges that Daimler is “a corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware with its principal place of business
lo-cated…[in] Oregon….” [Filing No. 19 at
1-2.] Daimler's full name is set forth as Daimler Trucks
North America, LLC, and “LLC” denotes a limited
liability company, not a corporation. The parties must confer
regarding whether Daimler is a corporation or a limited
liability company. If Daimler is a limited liability company,
the parties must provide “the citizenship of all the
limited partners, as well as of the general partner.”
Hart v. Terminex Int'l, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th
Cir. 2003). “[T]he citizenship of unincorporated
associations must be traced through however many layers of
partners or members there may be.” Id. at 543.
Asserting that all partners are citizens of “X”
or that no partners are citizens of “X” is
insufficient. See Peters v. Astrazeneca LP,
224 Fed.Appx. 503, 505 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting the
insufficiency of a limited partnership asserting that none of
its partners were citizens destroying diversity “rather
than furnishing the citizenship of all of its partners so
that [the court] could determine its citizenship”).
• In its Amended Complaint, Federal does not properly
allege the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy
must exceed “$75, 000, exclusive of interest and
costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The “exclusive of
interest and costs” language must be included in the
amount in controversy allegation.
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, 670 (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). The Court must know the details of the underlying
jurisdictional allegations because parties cannot confer
jurisdiction on the Court simply by stipulating that it
exists. See Evergreen Square of Cudahy v.
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority,
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”).
in order for the Court to determine whether it has diversity
jurisdiction over this matter, the parties are ORDERED to
conduct whatever investigation is necessary and file a joint
jurisdictional statement by April 21, 2017 properly setting
forth each party's citizenship and whether the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of interest and
costs. In the joint jurisdictional statement, the parties
must also address whether Federal is a mutual insurance
company and, if so, properly set forth its citizenship
keeping in mind that the citizenship of a mutual insurance
company turns on the corporate form it is considered to be by
applicable state law. See Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Country Life Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 548, 551 (7th Cir. 1988)
(noting that Texas law rendered Texas mutual insurance
company an unincorporated association while Minnesota law
rendered Minnesota mutual insurance company a corporation).
agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a joint
jurisdictional statement, competing statements must be filed
by that date. The filing of the joint jurisdictional
statement satisfies Federal's obligations under Local
via ECF only to all counsel of record
 The parties must also address the
citizenship of the City of Muncie, since Federal alleges it
is a partial ...