United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
JOSHUA
P. KOLAR MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court
must continuously police its subject matter jurisdiction.
Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 312 F.3d
876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002). The Court must dismiss this action
if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(h)(3). Currently, the Court is unable to determine if it
has subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation.
Defendants
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC and Outback Steakhouse,
Merrillville, Indiana invoked this Court's subject matter
jurisdiction via diversity jurisdiction by filing a Notice of
Removal to federal court. As the parties seeking federal
jurisdiction, Defendants have the burden of establishing that
subject matter jurisdiction exists. Smart v. Local 702
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03
(7th Cir. 2009).
For the
Court to have diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff Chanel Battle
and Defendants must be citizens of different states, and the
amount in controversy must be more than $75, 000. Defendants
have alleged a sufficient amount in controversy. Defendants
have also sufficiently alleged the citizenship of Plaintiff,
and noted that Defendant Outback Steakhouse, Merrillville,
Indiana is a legal non-entity. However, the allegations are
insufficient as to the citizenship of Defendant Outback
Steakhouse of Florida, LLC.
The
Notice of Removal alleges that Defendant Outback Steakhouse
of Florida, LLC is “a Florida Corporation with its
principal place of business at 2202 North West Shore Blvd.,
Tampa, Florida 33607.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 5, ECF
No. 1). This allegation is insufficient for the purpose of
determining citizenship.
This
allegation regarding the citizenship of Defendant Outback
Steakhouse of Florida, LLC is unclear as to whether it is
“incorporated, ” and thus, a corporation, or
whether it is “organized” as a limited liability
company. This distinction is important because for purposes
of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability
company's citizenship is different than that of a
corporation. Corporations “are deemed to be citizens of
the state in which they are incorporated and the state in
which they have their principal place of business.”
N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th
Cir. 1990) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has further “held that
‘when one corporation sues another and the only basis
of federal jurisdiction is diversity, the [party asserting
federal jurisdiction] must allege both the state of
incorporation and the state of principal place of
business for each corporation.'” Wojan v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 851 F.2d 969, 974-75 (7th Cir. 1988)
(citing Casio, Inc. v. S.M. & R. Co., Inc., 755
F.2d 528, 529-30 (7th Cir. 1985)); see also Karazanos v.
Madison Two Assocs., 147 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir. 1998)
(“in cases with corporate parties, it is necessary to
allege both the state of incorporation and the state of the
principal place of business, even if they are one and the
same.” (internal citation omitted)). If Defendant
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC is a corporation it must
allege the state of its principal place of business and the
state of its incorporation.
Conversely,
a limited liability company's citizenship “for
purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship
of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150
F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Therefore, if Defendant
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC is actually a limited
liability company, the Court must be advised of the identity
of each of its members and advised of each member's
citizenship. Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439
F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006); see generally Guar.
Nat'l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59
(7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that the court would “need
to know the name and citizenship(s)” of each partner
for diversity jurisdiction purposes). Moreover, citizenship
must be “traced through multiple levels” for
those members who are a partnership or a limited liability
company, as anything less can result in a remand for want of
jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v.
Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir.
2004).
Given
the importance of determining the Court's jurisdiction to
hear this case, Defendants must first allege whether
Defendant Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC is
“incorporated, ” and thus, a corporation, or
whether it is “organized” as a limited liability
company or another form of business entity. Defendants must
then sufficiently allege Defendant Outback Steakhouse of
Florida, LLC's citizenship as outlined above. Therefore,
the Court ORDERS Defendants to
FILE, on or before August 5,
...