Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:20-cv-04401_de6> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-04401_de6 RegisterActionDate "2020-07-29" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-04401_de6 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiffs 43C6C1B, B3BD1E9, and 753F5DB filed a complaint against Safeguard Properties Management, LLC, invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction. The jurisdictional allegations of the complaint are inadequate. Plaintiffs state that they are "residents" of Illinois. See Cplt. at para. 6, 8, 10. But what matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is citizenship, not residence. See Stoller v. Walworth County, 770 Fed. Appx. 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2019); RTP LLC v. ORIX Real Estate Capital, Inc., 827 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2016) ("Citizenship depends not on residence but on domicile, which means the place where a person intends to live in the long run. It is possible to reside in one state while planning to return to a long-term residence in another state."). Maybe Plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois, not just residents. But if so, they must expressly allege their citizenship to establish this Court's jurisdiction. The complaint's allegations about Defendant Safeguard Properties Management, LLC are inadequate, too. The complaint alleges that Safeguard is a "Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Ohio." See Cplt. at para. 12. But for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the principal place of business of an LLC makes no difference. For purposes of diversity, a limited liability company is deemed to be a citizen of each state where its members are citizens. See Martin v. Living Essentials, LLC, 653 Fed. Appx. 482, 485 (7th Cir. 2016) ("[T]he home 'base' of a limited liability company, or LLC, is irrelevant, given that an LLC has the citizenship of each of its members."); Thomas v. Guardmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) ("For diversity jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members."); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he citizenship of an LLC for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members."); Fellowes, Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equip. Co., 759 F.3d 787, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2014). The complaint does allege that "Safeguard is not a citizen of Illinois." See Cplt. at para. 13. But it is not sufficient to allege diversity of citizenship in the negative. That is, it is not good enough to allege that Party X is not a citizen of State Y. A complaint cannot "'merely allege diversity of citizenship without identifying the [parties'] states of citizenship,' for that is no better than a 'bare assertion that the defendants are citizens of another state different from the Plaintiff.'" Dancel v. Groupon, Inc., 940 F.3d 381, 385 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Dalton v. Teva N. Am., 891 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2018)); see also Johnson v. National Asset Advisors, LLC, 772 Fed. Appx. 328, 329 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing the "need," when "diversity of citizenship is invoked, to identify the citizenship of each party to the case"). A "naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship is never sufficient." Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007); see also McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 890-91 (7th Cir. 2006). The complaint does not disclose where Safeguard is a citizen, let alone identify its members and reveal their citizenship. The Court will give Plaintiffs another try. By August 14, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a statement that discloses where they are citizens. Plaintiffs also must establish the citizenship of Defendant by identifying all of its members and revealing their citizenship. Plaintiffs shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 07/29/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-04401_de6 AdministrativeID "6" @default.