UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MARION T, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:12-CV-456

)

THERMOFORMING MACHINERY & )

EQUIPMENT, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendant based

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Notice of Removal

alleges that Plaintiff Marion T, LLC, “is an Indiana corporation with its principal office located

in North Vernon, Indiana.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 4.) 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate because of the discrepancy

between the allegations in the Notice of Removal describing Plaintiff Marion T, LLC, as a

corporation (Notice of Removal ¶ 4) and the allegations in the Complaint indicating that Marion

T, LLC—as its business designation suggests—is an “Indiana limited liability company”

(Compl. ¶ 2). Because of this discrepancy, it is unclear whether Marion T, LLC, is a corporation

or a limited liability company. 

If Marion T, LLC, is a corporation—which appears to be the less likely outcome—then

its citizenship has not been properly alleged. Although Defendants allege that Marion T, LLC, is

Indiana corporation with its principal office in Indiana (Notice of Removal ¶ 4), corporations

“are deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and of the state in which

1
they have their principal place of business,” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th

Cir. 1990) (emphases added); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The term “principal place of

business” refers to the corporation’s “nerve center”—the place where a corporation’s officers

direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct.

1181, 1192 (2010). Thus, if Marion T, LLC, is a corporation, the Court must be apprised of the

state in which its principal place of business, rather than principal office, is located.

On the other hand, if Marion T, LLC, is in fact a limited liability company, then its

citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members,”

Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998), and, therefore, the Court would have

to be advised of the citizenship of all the members of Marion T, LLC, to ensure that none of its

members share a common citizenship with the Plaintiff, Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d

346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006). This citizenship would then have to be “traced through multiple

levels” for those members of Marion T, LLC, who are a partnership or a limited liability

company, as anything less could 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, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended

Notice of Removal on or before January 11, 2013, clarifying whether Plaintiff Marion T, LLC, is

a corporation or a limited liability company and making the appropriate citizenship allegations

pursuant to that clarification.

Moreover, along with the Notice of Removal, the Complaint is also inadequate. Under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must

be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if

2
the party is unrepresented.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(a). Here, Marion T, LLC, is represented by H.

Joseph Certain. But Attorney Certain did not sign the Complaint as required by Rule 11. (See

Compl. 2.) As such, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint on or before January

11, 2013, that is signed by its attorney in accordance with Rule 11.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 28th day of December, 2012.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

3