UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

COUPONCABIN LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-39-TLS 

 ) 

SAVINGS.COM, INC., COX TARGET ) 

MEDIA, INC., LINFIELD MEDIA, LLC, ) 

INTERNET BRANDS, INC., SAZZE, INC. ) 

d/b/a DEALSPLUS, and ) 

Does 1 through 10, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

 ) 

SAZZE, INC. d/b/a DEALSPLUS, ) 

 ) 

 Counterclaimant, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

COUPONCABIN LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Counterclaim Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court must continuously police its 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 

2002). 

The Counterclaimant alleges that the Court’s original subject-matter jurisdiction is based 

on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In 

this case, the parties dispute whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 
2 

As for diversity of citizenship, the Counterclaimant is a corporation and the Counterclaim 

Defendant is a limited liability company. A limited liability company is analogous to a 

partnership and takes the citizenship of its members. Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. 

Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003). If the members of the limited liability company 

are themselves limited liability companies, the counterclaimant must also plead the citizenship of 

those members as of the date the counterclaim was filed. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 

531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n LLC’s jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of 

each of its members as of the date the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those 

members have members, the citizenship of those members as well.”). A corporation, however, is 

deemed to be a citizen of every state and foreign state in which it has been incorporated and the 

state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The 

term “principal place of business” refers to the corporation’s “nerve center,” that is, 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). Counterclaimant Sazze, Inc., invoked this Court’s 

diversity jurisdiction by filing an Indiana state law claim in its federal court Counterclaim. As the 

party seeking federal jurisdiction, Sazze, Inc., has the burden of establishing that subject-matter 

jurisdiction exists. Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802–03 (7th 

Cir. 2009). 

There is insufficient information for the Court to determine the citizenship of 

Counterclaim Defendant CouponCabin LLC, which is necessary to determine whether this 

Counterclaim properly invokes this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The 

Counterclaim Defendant “is a Delaware limited liability company and . . . its principal place of 

business is in Whiting, Indiana.” (Counterclaim ¶ 10, ECF No. 93.) This description is 
3 

insufficient for the Court to confirm diversity of citizenship. “Limited liability companies are 

unincorporated entities, and, for diversity purposes, ‘limited liability companies are citizens of 

every state of which any member is a citizen.’” Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Titan Tire Corp., 398 

F.3d 879, 881 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Counterclaimant has not identified the members of 

CouponCabin LLC, which is necessary to confirm that diversity of citizenship exists over the 

Counterclaim. Wise v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, 450 F.3d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 2006). 

 The Court will also highlight that it is not the residency of an individual or a limited 

liability company that matters, but rather the citizenship of the individual or limited liability 

company. See Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (per 

curiam). An individual’s citizenship depends on his or her domicile. See id. Domicile is the place 

one intends to remain. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002). As noted above, 

the citizenship of a limited liability company is the citizenship of each of its members, which in 

turn may be another limited liability company, an individual, or a corporation. 

Therefore, the Court ORDERS Counterclaimant Sazze, Inc., to submit, on or before, 

November 15, 2016, a jurisdictional statement and supporting brief providing: 

(1) the members of CouponCabin LLC; and 

(2) the citizenship of the members of CouponCabin LLC. 

SO ORDERED on October 17, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FORT WAYNE DIVISION