United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE
matter is before the Court for a second time on the issue of
the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
October 10, 2017, Plaintiff Torrey Carter, through counsel,
filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1], alleging that the Court's
original subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Compl. ¶ 1. As
of January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff is proceeding without
counsel. On May 1, 2019, the case was reassigned to the
undersigned as presiding judge.
courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction, are duty
bound to police their own jurisdiction. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”); Johnson v. United States
Office of Pers. Mgmt., 783 F.3d 655, 660 (7th Cir.
2015). The Plaintiff, having filed his Complaint in this
Court, has the burden to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010).
Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties to an action
on each side are citizens of different states, with no
defendant a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
18, 2019, the Court sua sponte issued an Order [ECF No. 47]
finding that, although the Complaint sufficiently alleges the
Plaintiff's citizenship (Illinois) and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000.00, the Complaint does not
properly allege the citizenship of Defendant Malone Sports
Center, LLC. The Complaint alleges that Malone Sports Center,
LLC, “is a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Indiana with its
principal place of business located in Lafayette,
Indiana.” Compl. ¶ 1 (emphasis added). This
allegation is deficient because the Defendant is not a
corporation but rather a limited liability company, which is
analogous to a partnership and takes the citizenship of its
members. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt.
Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003).
Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a supplemental
jurisdictional statement identifying the citizenship of each
of the members of Malone Sport Center, LLC as of October 10,
2017, the date the Complaint was filed. The Plaintiff timely
filed the statement [ECF No. 50] with supporting documents,
but neither the statement nor the documents identify the
members or the citizenship of the members of Malone Sports
Center, LLC. The fact that Malone Sports Center, LLC was
organized under the laws of Indiana, has its principal office
in Indiana, has a president with an Indiana mailing address,
and has registered agents in Kentucky and Indiana does not
satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. In its response [ECF
No. 54] to the Plaintiff's supplemental jurisdictional
statement, Defendant Malone Sports Center, LLC notes that the
Plaintiff failed to meet his burden and asks the Court to
dismiss the lawsuit. The Defendant does not identify the
citizenship of its members or argue that diversity
jurisdiction is not met.
light of the Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants
the Plaintiff a final opportunity, up to and including
October 4, 2019, to establish diversity jurisdiction
by identifying the citizenship of the members of Malone
Sports Center, LLC as of the date the Complaint was filed in
this case. The Plaintiff should be aware that he can request
jurisdictional discovery from the Defendant to identify this
alternative to providing responses to jurisdictional
discovery, the Defendant may file a Notice with the Court, by
the same October 4, 2019 deadline, identifying the
citizenship of its members. Otherwise, the Court will direct
the Defendant to provide the same to satisfy the Court's
inquiry on subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Nat'l Asset Advisors, LLC, 772
Fed.Appx. 328, 328 (7th Cir. 2019) (requiring the
defendant/appellee, a limited partnership, to provide a
“complete jurisdictional summary” naming all of
its partners and identifying each partner's state of
citizenship after the pro se plaintiffs/appellants provided
an incomplete jurisdictional statement under Seventh Circuit
 Rule 28 of the Seventh Circuit Rules
(a) Appellant's Jurisdictional
Statement. The jurisdictional statement in
appellant's brief, see Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4), must
contain the following details: (1) The statement concerning
the district court's jurisdiction shall identify the
provision of the constitution or federal statute involved if
jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal question.
If jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship, the
statement shall identify the jurisdictional amount and the
citizenship of each party to the litigation. If any party is
a corporation, the statement shall identify both the state of
incorporation and the state in which the corporation has its
principal place of business. If any party is an
unincorporated association or partnership the statement ...