UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

DIRECTBUY, INC., )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-344-JVB-AZ

)

BUY DIRECT, LLC, et al., )

Defendants, )

____________________________________)

)

BUY DIRECT, LLC, et al., )

Counterclaim Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

DIRECTBUY, INC., et al., )

Counterclaim Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On June 5, 2024, Judge Martin, the previous Magistrate Judge assigned to this 

case, sua sponte ordered Counter-Plaintiffs Buy Direct LLC, Tom Pope, and Elona 

Pope to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement because the allegations of their

Third Amended Counterclaim did not sufficiently allege a basis for the Court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction. [DE 138]. Counter-Plaintiffs were specifically ordered to state the 

citizenship of the three Counter-Defendants CSC Generation, Inc., DirectBuy Home 

Improvement, Inc., and DirectBuy Operations, LLC because the only asserted basis 

of jurisdiction was under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). [Id.]

The Counter-Plaintiffs are all citizens of the state of Texas, see DE 112 Third 

Am. Counterclaim at ¶¶ 12–14, so assuming the amount of controversy is met, all 

Counter-Defendants must be citizens of states other than Texas for the Court to have 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00344-JVB-AZ document 141 filed 06/27/24 page 1 of 6
2 

subject matter jurisdiction. On June 18, Counter-Plaintiffs filed their Supplemental 

Jurisdictional Statement [DE 140]. That statement, however, does not fully flesh out 

the complete citizenship of all three Counter-Defendants identified in the Court’s 

prior order, as discussed below.

Federal courts “have an independent duty to ensure subject-matter

jurisdiction” that cannot be waived by the parties or excused by the Court. Dexia

Credit Loc. v. Rogan, 602 F.3d 879, 883 (7th Cir. 2010). The claims at issue in the 

Third Amended Counterclaim are permissive counterclaims which require “an 

independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Oak Park Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Therkildsen, 

209 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2000). The only asserted basis is diversity jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties on each side of an action 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).

The citizenship of Counter-Defendants CSC Generation, Inc. and DirectBuy 

Home Improvement, Inc. are relatively straightforward. Both are incorporated in 

Delaware and, at the time of the filing of the Third Amended Counterclaim, had their 

respective principal place of business in Indiana. They are thus both citizens of 

Delaware and Indiana. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a 

citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the 

State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business”). And while 

Counter-Plaintiffs note that documents filed with the Indiana Secretary of State 

reflect a change of CSC Generation’s and DirectBuy Home Improvement’s principal 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00344-JVB-AZ document 141 filed 06/27/24 page 2 of 6
3 

places of business to an address in California, that is not relevant for present 

purposes because the Court must assess jurisdiction as of the date of filing or removal 

of a lawsuit. Sykes v. Cook Inc., 72 F.4th 195, 206 (7th Cir. 2023) (jurisdiction 

determined at time of filing); see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 

U.S. 567, 575 (2004) (“[A]llowing a citizenship change to cure the jurisdictional defect 

that existed at the time of filing would contravene the principle articulated by Chief 

Justice Marshall in Conolly.We decline to do today what the Court has refused to do 

for the past 175 years.”). Counter-Plaintiff’s supplemental jurisdictional statement 

thus shows there is diversity of citizenship between the Counter-Plaintiffs and two of 

the three Counter-Defendants.

Counter-Defendant DirectBuy Operations, LLC, however, is a different story. 

DirectBuy Operations is not a corporation. It is a limited liability company registered 

under the laws of Delaware and has a principal place of business (and Manager) 

located in Indiana. The state of registration or location of a principal place of business 

do not dictate citizenship though because “[f]or diversity jurisdiction purposes, the 

citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members ... and, if those 

members have members, the citizenship of those members as well.” Thomas v.

Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). As such, “an LLC can be a 

citizen of many states.” Qin v. Deslongchamps, 31 F.4th 576, 579 (7th Cir. 2022). 

Counter-Plaintiffs thus do not allege the identity, let alone the citizenship, of any 

member of DirectBuy Operations, LLC in either the Third Amendment Counterclaim 

or their supplemental jurisdictional statement. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00344-JVB-AZ document 141 filed 06/27/24 page 3 of 6
4 

As the Seventh Circuit has noted, the situation before us presents an “obvious 

obstacle to pursuing relief in federal court” because many states do not require 

limited liability companies to disclose their constituent members. Qin, 31 F.4th at 

582. So what is a federal court concerned about its potential lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction to do? Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an option, as the 

Counter-Plaintiffs have the burden of alleging subject matter jurisdiction and have 

failed to do so. See Geiser v. Goshen Health Sys. Inc., No. 3:17-CV-864 JD, 2018 WL 

3619796, at *1 (N.D. Ind. July 30, 2018) (“The burden of establishing proper federal 

subject matter jurisdiction rests on the party asserting it, which for the purposes of 

this motion is the counter-plaintiff[.]”). But that seems drastic and unwarranted in 

this case, which has already been pending for nearly a decade and because concerns 

over subject matter jurisdiction were raised by the Court sua sponte. 

Counter-Plaintiffs say they have provided the Court with what they can “based 

on available public information,” which they tacitly acknowledge to be insufficient 

and therefore “request leave of court to commence discovery” as to the citizenship of 

DirectBuy Operations, LLC. [DE 138 at 3]. The Court agrees that such limited 

discovery as to whether the parties are in fact diverse is warranted in this instance. 

See Qin ̧31 F.4th at 582 (“Courts sometimes authorize such discovery after suit is 

filed when doubt emerges regarding whether, as alleged, the parties are in fact 

diverse.”).

Accordingly and for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS LEAVE for 

Counter-Plaintiffs Buy Direct LLC, Tom Pope, and Elona Pope to conduct limited 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00344-JVB-AZ document 141 filed 06/27/24 page 4 of 6
5 

jurisdictional discovery as to Counter-Defendant DirectBuy Operations, LLC as 

follows:

(1) Counter-Plaintiffs are permitted to serve no more than two (2) 

interrogatories directed to Counter-Defendant DirectBuy Operations, LLC

seeking the state(s) it is a citizen of, including the citizenship of its members 

and the citizenship of any members which are themselves limited liability 

companies or partnerships as necessary. These interrogatories shall not 

count towards the limit placed on written interrogatories by Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). 

(2) Counter-Plaintiffs shall serve these interrogatories no later than July 8, 

2024.

(3) Counter-Defendant DirectBuy Operations, LLC shall respond to these 

interrogatories within 30 days of service. To the extent DirectBuy 

Operations, LLC believes answering these interrogatories requires 

disclosure of proprietary or confidential information, it may mark its 

responses as “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (meaning they may not be 

shared with anyone beside counsel of record or the Court) or seek a

protective order prior to the date of its response.

(4) Counter-Plaintiffs shall file a second supplemental jurisdictional statement 

no later than August 7, 2024 provisionally under seal in accordance with 

the Local Rule 5-3 if necessary. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00344-JVB-AZ document 141 filed 06/27/24 page 5 of 6
6 

SO ORDERED this 27th day of June 2024. 

/s/ Abizer Zanzi 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ABIZER ZANZI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00344-JVB-AZ document 141 filed 06/27/24 page 6 of 6