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.

Homestead of Morton Grove, LLC, et al v. Jssh Architects

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


March 5, 2012

HOMESTEAD OF MORTON GROVE, LLC, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JSSH ARCHITECTS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Homestead of Morton Grove, LLC ("Homestead") and Essex Corporation ("Essex") have brought this action against JSSH Architects, Inc. ("JSSH") and Duffy Engineering & Associates, Inc. ("Duffy"), predicating federal subject matter jurisdiction in terms of diversity of citizenship. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require plaintiffs' counsel to flesh out the Complaint's allegations as to one aspect of that claimed jurisdiction.

Complaint ¶¶3, 4 and 5 properly identify the dual aspects of corporate citizenship as to Essex, JSSH and Duffy in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1).*fn1 But here is what Complaint ¶2 says as to Homestead:

The Homestead of Morton Grove, LLC ("Homestead") is an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 11606 Nicholas Street, Omaha, Nebraska. The members of Homestead are Illinois and Nebraska limited liability companies, the members of which are citizens of either Illinois or Nebraska.

It is obvious from those allegations that plaintiffs' counsel are well aware of the relevant jurisdictional facts where limited liability companies are involved (a subject that has been the topic of repeated teaching from our Court of Appeals, exemplified for instance by Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533-34 (7th Cir. 2007)). But because that teaching requires peeling away every layer of the jurisdictional onion, this Court would consider itself remiss if it failed to require counsel to provide the identity and the state of citizenship of each person or entity included within those layers, rather than asking this Court to accept without any supporting details the purely conclusory statement in the last sentence of Complaint ¶2.

Accordingly counsel for Homestead and Essex are ordered to file an Amended Complaint ¶2 (not a full-blown Amended Complaint), setting out the relevant jurisdictional facts on or before March 16, 2012. Because counsel's obvious awareness of the jurisdictional requirements would appear to indicate that the disclosure will confirm the existence of jurisdiction, this Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary initial scheduling order.


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.