IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

GREGORY L. JONES, 

Plaintiff, OPINION &ORDER

TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY 14-cv-191-jdp

OF AMERICA

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.

 

BLUE NILE EXRESS, LLC, and

EYOB BAYRU,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Gregory Jones brings this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging diversity 

of citizenship as grounds for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Jones alleges that he 

suffered an injury because of defendant Eyob Bayru’s negligence in adjusting a tandem rear axle 

on a semi-tractor while the two were working in Plymouth, Indiana. At the time of the accident, 

Bayru was employed as a truck driver by defendant Blue Nile Express, LLC. Just over a month 

after Jones filed his complaint, Transguard Insurance Company of America, Inc. filed a motion 

to intervene as a plaintiff in this suit. Transguard alleged that it is entitled to reimbursement for 

payments it made to Jones under an Illinois worker’s compensation statute. The court granted 

Transguard’s motion to intervene. Dkt. 23. Blue Nile has filed a motion to transfer this case. 

Dkt. 13.

Before addressing Blue Nile’s motion to transfer, or any other substantive issue in this 

case, the court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Because the 

allegations in the complaint are insufficient to determine if the parties are truly diverse, the 

court will give Jones an opportunity to file an amended complaint containing the necessary 
factual allegations to establish diversity jurisdiction. The court also directs Transguard to file a 

pleading, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c).

OPINION

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 

150, AFL-CIO v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir. 2009). Unless a complaint alleges 

complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding 

$75,000, or raises a federal question, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Smart 

v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009). Because jurisdiction 

is limited, federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 

jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 

(2010). Further, the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing 

that jurisdiction is present. Smart, 562 F.3d at 802-03. Here, Jones contends that the court has 

jurisdiction because the parties are diverse. Dkt. 1. Unfortunately, his allegations are 

insufficient to allow this court to determine Blue Nile’s citizenship.

Blue Nile is a limited liability company, and “the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship 

of each of its members.” Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 

2007). However, Jones has not alleged the citizenship of Blue Nile’s members, making it 

impossible to determine whether complete diversity exists in this case. Instead, Jones alleges

that Blue Nile “is organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of 

Wisconsin, and has its principle place of business in this district.” Dkt. 1. As the Seventh 

Circuit has instructed, this information is not relevant in deciding the citizenship of a limited 

liability company. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). 

2
Before dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court will give 

Jones leave to file within 14 days of this order an amended complaint that establishes subject 

matter jurisdiction by alleging the names and citizenship of each of Blue Nile’s members. In 

alleging Blue Nile’s citizenship, Jones should be aware that if any of the members are themselves 

limited liability companies, partnerships, or other similar entities, then the citizenship of those 

members and partners must be alleged as well. See Meryerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 

616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“[T]he citizenship of unincorporated associations must 

be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be.”).

Transguard’s motion to intervene was not “accompanied by a pleading that sets out the 

claim or defense for which intervention is sought,” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). Instead, 

Transguard’s motion incorporated Jones’s complaint, but “the requirement of Rule 24(c) is 

unambiguous and, as a general rule, compliance may not be achieved simply by adopting the 

prior pleadings of a party.” Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chi., 7 F.3d 584, 595 (7th Cir. 

1993). In this case, the omission of a pleading is problematic because “[a]s an intervening 

plaintiff in a case where federal jurisdiction is premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, [Transguard bears]

the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.” TIG Ins. Co. v. Reliable Research Co., 334 

F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2003). Transguard’s motion does not contain jurisdictional allegations 

and leaves the court with insufficient information to determine whether the parties are 

completely diverse. The court will give Transguard leave to file within 14 days of this order a 

pleading that not only satisfies Rule 24(c), but that also sets out the company’s citizenship.

Both Jones’s and Transguard’s obligations under this order could be satisfied in a single 

amended complaint, if those parties are inclined to cooperate. 

3
ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff Jones shall have until June 25, 2014, to file and serve an amended complaint 

containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of 

citizenship for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332;

2) Jones’s failure to amend timely will result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction;

3) Intervening Plaintiff Transguard shall have until June 25, 2014, to file and serve a 

complaint complying with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c) and containing good faith allegations 

sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship for purposes of determining 

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and

4) Transguard’s failure to file timely will result in its prompt dismissal as a party to this 

matter.

Entered this 11th day of June, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

________________________________________

JAMES D. PETERSON

District Judge

4