UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

OWL CREST, INC., doing business as )

Raintree Plaza, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 1:16-cv-00065-RL-SLC

)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company removed this case here based on diversity

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (DE 1). The notice of removal reflects that

Defendant is “a company incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Illinois” with

its principal place of business in Illinois. (DE 1 ¶ 7). The notice further alleges that “[a]s

evident from the allegations in the Complaint,” Plaintiff Owl Crest, Inc., “is a resident of the

State of Indiana and citizen of the State of Indiana.” (DE 1 ¶ 6). Defendant’s allegations

concerning the citizenship of the parties, however, are insufficient to establish diversity

jurisdiction. As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Defendant bears the

burden of demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v.

Shop’n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). 

 Defendant’s allegations about its own citizenship are unclear as to whether it is

“incorporated,” and thus, a corporation, or whether it is “organized” as a limited liability

company. This distinction is important because for purposes of establishing diversity

jurisdiction, a limited liability company’s citizenship is different than that of a corporation. 

Corporations “are deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and the state
in which they have their principal place of business.” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d

591, 594 (7th Cir. 1990) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). Conversely, a limited liability

company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its

members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). 

Therefore, if Defendant is actually a limited liability company, the Court must be advised

of the identity of each of its members, and such member’s citizenship. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v.

Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006); see generally 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 for diversity jurisdiction purposes). Moreover, citizenship must

be “traced through multiple levels” for those members who are a partnership or a limited liability

company, as anything less can result in a remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment &

Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004).

Defendant’s allegations concerning the citizenship of Plaintiff Owl Crest, Inc., are also

inadequate. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion (DE 1 ¶ 6), Owl Crest, Inc.’s citizenship is not

evident from the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint (DE 2 ¶ 1). Therefore, the Court

needs to be informed of Owl Crest, Inc.’s state of incorporation and the state in which it has its

principal place of business. See N. Trust Co., 899 F.2d at 594. 

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to file an amended petition for removal on or

before March 2, 2016, that properly alleges the citizenship of each party.

SO ORDERED. Enter for this 17th day of February 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge 

2