true today as it did nearly nine decades ago that each plaintiff
is the master of his, her or its complaint (The Fair v. Kohler
Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 25 (1913)). It will therefore
not do for defendants to ascribe a legitimate effort to avoid
removal as having “been made in bad faith” (Notice 46). Instead,
if defendants were able to cure the other jurisdictional problem
referred to in the preceding paragraph and wished to try another
attempted removal, this Court's LR 81.2(a) might provide a
potential avenue to that end.‘

In all events “it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction” within the meaning of Section
1447(c) and controlling caselaw. That being the case, Section
1447(c) goes on to mandate that “the case shall be remanded.”
This Court so orders. In accordance with this District Court's
LR 81.2(b), the Clerk is ordered to mail the certified copy of

the remand order forthwith.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: October 31, 2002

4 This should not be misunderstood as any indication that
any such future effort, which would have to be evaluated on its
own, would necessarily pass muster.

3


|
&

Minute Oras Form (06099)

United States District Court, Northern District of [linois

Name of Assigned Jud; i Sitting Judge if Othe
ine Magistrate Tudge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C7717 DATE 10/31/2002
CASE Frank Fararo vs. Sink LLC
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(6) im] Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

@) i) Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) a Ruling/Hearing on__setfor__—_at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to) [set for/re-set for] on setfor at.

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—— at,

(7) im] Trial{set for/re-set for]on at

(8) a {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to ___at

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a)\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

go) (Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. In all events “it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction” within the meaning of Section 1447(c) and controlling case
law. That being the case, Section 1447(c) goes on to mandate that “the case shall be remanded.” This
Court so orders. In accordance with this District Court’s LR 81.2(b), the Clerk is ordered to mail the

certified copy of the remand order forthwith.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
107172002

qd a {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. “Document,
No notices required, umber otvotees op Bamber
v | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. : N O r iy 4 2 iv 4
Notified counsel by telephone, date docketed
Docketing to mail notices.
Y | Mail AO 450 form, Inga Lopesiqes” Lifekering dopdty invials Ve

courtroom naw es date mailed notica
SN deputy’s ; ow
initials Li

Date/time reedived in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials,



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

FRANK C. FARARO, individually,
etc., et al.,

)
)
)

Plaintiffs, )
) 2

v. ) No. 02 € 7717 a
)
SINK LLC, etc., et al., ) gv ot

) yw
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Sink LLC (“Sink”), Artist Colony Limited (“Artist Colony”)
and three individual defendants have joined in a Notice of
Removal (“Notice”)? to bring this action brought against them by
a corporate and an individual plaintiff from the Circuit Court of
Cook County to this federal court. Removal is sought to be
grounded in the diversity of citizenship provisions spelled out
in 28 U.S.C. §1332.? But because the removal is patently flawed
in two respects, this Court sua sponte remands this action to its
place of origin.

To begin with, it is long past time for any federal
practitioner to be aware that the Section 1332 citizenship of a

limited liability company such as Sink has nothing to do with

1 Although the Notice is captioned properly, Notice 48

mistakenly refers to the old form of “Petition for Removal” (see
also the Notice 94 reference to “Petitioner”). Even though the
error obviously makes no difference to the outcome, counsel
should take greater care.

2

All further references to Title 28's provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.” VY


these irrelevancies described in Notice 7:

Defendant Sink LLC f/k/a Artists Colony LLC is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of
North Carolina with its principal place of business in
North Carolina.

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

and a flock of Seventh Circuit cases since then have consistently
taught that the only relevant states of citizenship are those of
all _ members of the limited liability company, a subject on which
both the Complaint and the Notice are totally silent.* So the
Notice falls short in terms of establishing the total diversity
that has been required for nearly two centuries--see Strawbridge
v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).

And there is more. Although the Complaint sets out five
separate counts, each of the first three containing a $74,500 ad
damnum and each of the last three containing a $60,000 ad damnum,
it does not at all follow that the aggregate amount in
controversy necessarily satisfies the over-$75,000 floor required
for diversity jurisdiction (indeed, it would seem from
plaintiff's counsel's careful use of the $74,500 number that they
have taken pains to stay in the state court system). With

limited exceptions (none of which applies here), it remains as

> As indicated at the outset, codefendant Artist Colony has
“Limited” as part of its corporate name. It is unclear whether
it too might be a limited liability company, in which event what
has been said in the text would apply to require a showing of the
state of citizenship of each of its members as well.

2