You're viewing Docket Item 5 from the case Warsaw City of v. Governmental Interinsurance Exchange. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




case 1:13-cv-00274-PPS-RBC document 5 filed 09/20/13 page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CITY OF WARSAW, INDIANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOVERNMENTAL
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-274

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was filed in this Court on September 20, 2013, based on diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Dkt #1.) The complaint alleges that Plaintiff City of Warsaw,

Indiana is “organized under the laws of the State of Indiana and is located in Kosciusko County”

and that “Defendant Governmental Interinsurance Exchange is an Illinois reciprocal insurance

company with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3.)

The complaint is inadequate. As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity

jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirement of complete

diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th

Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has failed to identify how the Defendant is organized; i.e., whether it is a

corporation or an unincorporated association. For purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction,

a corporation’s citizenship is different than that of an unincorporated association. Thomas v.

Guardsmark, LLC., 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). 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); see 28 U.S.C. §

1332(c)(1). The term “principal place of business” refers to the corporation’s “nerve

case 1:13-cv-00274-PPS-RBC document 5 filed 09/20/13 page 2 of 2

center”—the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the

corporation’s activities. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).

Conversely, “if a firm is not incorporated, its citizenship is determined by the citizenship

of its proprietor, partners, members, or other participants.” Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc., 292

F.3d 526, 528 (7th Cir. 2002). Therefore, if Defendant is an unincorporated association, the

Court must be advised of the citizenship of all the members to ensure that none of its members

share a common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th

Cir. 2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels” for those members of

the Defendant who are a partnership or an LLC, as anything less can result in a dismissal or

remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC,

364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004).

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended

Complaint reciting the Defendant’s organizational status and stating its citizenship through all

applicable layers of ownership.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 20th day of September, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge