‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge ‘ Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 6575 DATE 8/24/2001
CASE Buca, Inc. vs. U.S. Restaurant Properties
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) im Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for
(5) oOo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for].on set for | at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(71) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) im) [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
CUFRCP4(m) General Rule21 CFRCP41(a\(1) CFRCP41(a)(2),
ao) «ox {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Buca’s counsel is ordered to file an appropriate
amendment to the Complaint in this Court’s chambers on or before September 4, 2001. In the absence
ofa timely filing, or if the filing reflects that any limited partner is a Minnesota Citizen, this Court will
be constrained to dismiss both the Complaint and this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
dl) of {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court,
No notices required. _mumber of notices
v Novis mailed by judge’s staff, aus 27 2000
Notified counsel by telephone. | dase docked
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. Q docketing deputy initials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
oh snar200
; courtroom as ayo 2a Pi ys &B dae mse notice
SN deputy’s uit SN
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office ailing dopoty initials



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

BUCA (WHEELING), INC.,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

No. 01 C 6575

U.S. RESTAURANT PROPERTIES
OPERATING L.P.,

garnet

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendant. AUG a 4 zon
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Buca (Wheeling), Inc. (“Buca”) has filed its Complaint
against U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. (“U.S.
Restaurant”), seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction on diversity

of citizenship grounds. Because the Complaint is flawed in that
respect, however, this opinion is issued sua sponte to send
Buca's counsel back to the drawing board to cure the flaw (if
curable),

There is no question as to the adequacy of the amount in
controversy for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1332,1 for Buca is suing
for something in excess of $147,000. And as to Buca itself,
Complaint §1 properly identifies its dual corporate citizenship
in accordance with Section 1332(c) (1)--both its place of
incorporation and its principal place of business are in
Minnesota.

But as its name indicates, U.S. Restaurant is a limited

* All further references to Title 28's provisions will

simply take the form “Section--.”



partnership, so that its place of formation and the location of
its principal place of business (both identified in Complaint 42)
are irrelevant for diversity purposes. Instead Carden v. Arkoma

Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990) teaches that the relevant

citizenship is that of each of its partners, both general and
limited. Here Complaint 43 advances the requisite Section
1332(c) (1) information as to U.S. Restaurant's corporate general
partner, but the Complaint is totally silent as to the limited
partner or partners.

Accordingly Buca's counsel is ordered to file an appropriate
amendment to the Complaint in this Court's chambers (with a copy
to be sent to U.S. Restaurant's counsel, if known--or if not,
with a copy to be transmitted to U.S. Restaurant in the same way
that process has been or is being served) on or before
September 4, 2001. In the absence of a timely filing, or if the
filing reflects that any limited partner is a Minnesota citizen,
this Court will be constrained to dismiss both the Complaint and

this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Trl fee QO Sect

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: August 24, 2001