From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Webster v. Bradford-Scott Data, LLC

United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana
Mar 19, 2024
1:24-cv-00117-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2024)

Opinion

1:24-cv-00117-HAB-SLC

03-19-2024

ANTHONY WEBSTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRADFORD-SCOTT DATA LLC, doing business as Sharetec, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

Susan Collins United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff filed the class action complaint in this suit on March 14, 2024, alleging jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (ECF 1). Subject matter jurisdiction is the first issue that must be addressed, Baker v. IBP, Inc., 357 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir. 2004), and thus, the Court raises the issue sua sponte, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Plaintiff's complaint, however, is inadequate with respect to CAFA jurisdiction.

Specifically, as to Defendant Bradford-Scott Data, LLC, the complaint alleges that it “is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business [in] . . . Indiana . . . .” (ECF 1 ¶ 9). But as this Court has oft observed, the citizenship of a limited liability company (LLC) “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). As such, the Court must be advised of the identity and citizenship of each member of an LLC for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., 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 of a partnership for diversity jurisdiction purposes). For any member who is an unincorporated association such as an LLC or partnership, Plaintiff must trace the member's citizenship through all applicable layers of ownership to ensure that no member shares a common citizenship with him. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004).

As the party invoking federal diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that CAFA's jurisdiction requirements have been met. Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d 609, 617 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Plaintiff is AFFORDED to and including March 25, 2024, to file a supplemental jurisdiction brief that properly articulates Defendant's citizenship.

“Allegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, 472 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1057 n.1 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (collecting cases); see also Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Webster v. Bradford-Scott Data, LLC

United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana
Mar 19, 2024
1:24-cv-00117-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2024)
Case details for

Webster v. Bradford-Scott Data, LLC

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY WEBSTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana

Date published: Mar 19, 2024

Citations

1:24-cv-00117-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2024)