UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

KELLY L. BRUECK 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOHN MANEELY COMPANY, INC., et 

al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:14-CV-227 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

This case arises out of the Defendant’s retraction of its job offer to the Plaintiff, Kelly L. 

Brueck, after she resigned her former employment to accept the position. Mr. Brueck initiated 

this case on July 2, 2014 by filing suit against her would-be employer, John Maneely Company, 

Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and fraud. 

This Court’s jurisdiction was based on the diversity of the parties, as the Complaint alleged that 

Ms. Brueck is a citizen of Indiana, and that John Maneely Company is a citizen of Pennsylvania 

and of Illinois. John Maneely Company moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and Ms. 

Brueck responded by amending her complaint, thus mooting the motion to dismiss. In the 

Amended Complaint, Ms. Brueck added three additional defendants: Glen Belk, Erin Campbell, 

and Kirstin Nielsen, each allegedly employees of John Maneely Company. The Defendants 

responded by once against moving to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and that motion was fully 

briefed. However, the Amended Complaint did not allege the citizenship of those three 

individuals, so the Court dismissed it with leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Ms. Brueck has now moved the Court to reconsider its dismissal of her Amended 

Complaint. She argues that she only sued the individuals “in their official capacities,” so their 
2 

citizenship is determined by the citizenship of their employer, and that Indiana law does not 

permit liability to attach to the employees for her claims. The parties then jointly moved the 

Court to reinstate the Amended Complaint, and requested that the Court rule on the merits of the 

motion to dismiss. The Defendants also requested that the Court dismiss the three individual 

defendants. Though she expressly acknowledges that the individual defendants cannot be liable 

under her claims, the Plaintiff opposes that request. 

Despite the parties’ apparent agreement that the Amended Complaint properly invokes 

this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court remains unpersuaded. The parties argue that the individuals’ 

own citizenship is immaterial because they are sued “in their official capacities” (as indicated by 

the caption but not the body of the complaint). However, the individual defendants are 

“employees of private companies, not a state or local government, so the defendants ha[ve] no 

official capacities in which they could be sued.” Ellibee v. Leonard, 226 F. App’x 351, 357 (5th 

Cir. 2007); see Tran v. Mich. Dep’t of Human Servs., No. 07-cv-13232, 2007 WL 4326791, at *4 

(E.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2007) (“Plaintiffs named [the individual defendant] in his ‘official capacity 

of [the employer defendant].’ However, because Plaintiff alleges that [the employer] is a private, 

non-profit entity, [Plaintiff] is not a state or local government employee. He therefore has no 

‘official capacity’ in which to be sued. . . . Therefore, Plaintiff’s official capacity designation of 

Defendants has no bearing on this analysis.”). The parties also note that under Indiana law, the 

individual defendants, as the agents of their employer, cannot be held individually liable for 

these claims. But that only means that Ms. Brueck has failed to state a claim against them, not 

that this Court can assert jurisdiction over non-diverse parties. 

Nonetheless, the Court can cure any jurisdictional defect by dropping the individual 

defendants from this action. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 573 
3 

(2004) (noting that courts “have the authority to cure a jurisdictional defect by dismissing a 

dispensable nondiverse party”). Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “On 

motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Dropping 

the individual defendants as parties to this matter is justified, as Ms. Brueck has conceded that no 

liability can attach to those defendants for her claims anyway. Further, even if official capacity 

claims against these individual defendants were proper, such claims are subject to dismissal as 

redundant once the employer appears in an action, and John Maneely Company appeared in this 

action before Ms. Brueck added the individuals as defendants. Schmidling v. City of Chicago, 1 

F.3d 494, 495 n.1 (7th Cir. 1993) (“The district court properly dismissed Mayor Daley, sued in 

his official capacity, as a party to this action. A lawsuit against Mayor Daley in his official 

capacity is the same as a lawsuit against the City of Chicago.”); Magee v. Hous. Auth., No. 3:09-

cv-337, 2010 WL 3000660, at *4 (N.D. Ind. July 28, 2010); Stevens v. Hous. Auth., 720 F. Supp. 

2d 1013, 1022 (N.D. Ind. 2010). Therefore, the Court reinstates the Amended Complaint, but 

drops Glen Belk, Erin Campbell, and Kirstin Nielsen as parties in this matter, so the claims 

against them are dismissed without prejudice. 

Since the parties had fully briefed a motion to dismiss as to the Amended Complaint, the 

Court also reinstates the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 72-1, a District Court 

Judge may refer a dispositive matter to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, the Court now refers the reinstated motion to dismiss [DE 122] to Magistrate Judge 

John E. Martin for preparation of a Report and Recommendation. The Court’s review of the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation will be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 
4 

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider [DE 27] is DENIED, and the parties’ 

motion to reinstate [DE 29] is GRANTED in part. The Court REINSTATES the Amended 

Complaint [DE 17], but DROPS Glen Belk, Erin Campbell, and Kirstin Nielsen as parties to this 

matter. The claims against those defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 

Court also REINSTATES the motion to dismiss the amended complaint [DE 21], and REFERS 

that motion to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of a Report and Recommendation. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: November 10, 2014 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court