of Tolemac, LLC and that states as to each such member his, her
or its state or states of citizenship.1 This Court will then be

in a position to confirm the existence or nonexistence of the

Cel DSi, bans

requisite diversity.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 14, 2002

* As to any individual member, a representation as to his
or her citizenship will suffice. As to any corporation, the
information called for by Section 1332(c) (1) must be provided.
And as to any other type of entity that may be a member, the
relevant information prescribed by law must be provided.

3


linyte Order Fuze (06797)

United States District Court, Northern District of [linois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Milton I. Shadur

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 02 C 594 DATE 2/14/2002
CASE Tolemac, LLC vs. Gerald P. Jackson
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:

(1) oa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due

(4) im) Ruling/Hearing on set for at

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

(6) QO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .

(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 CIFRCP41(a)(1) C1 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) =— {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to file
in this Court’s chambers on or before February 25, 2002 an appropriate supplement to the Amended
Complaint that identifies each member of Tolemac, LLC and that states as to each such member his, her
or its state or states of citizenship.

dl) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
° 4 juumber of notices

Document
Number

V | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

FEB 1 9 202

date ocketed

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices,
Mait AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials

received in

Y Pag time
s Office

cetitral ec mailing deputy initials



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

TOLEMAC, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v. No. 02 C 594

GERALD P. JACKSON,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court's January 28, 2002 memorandum order (“Order”)

(1) drew the attention of counsel for the three plaintiffs in
this action to some flaws in the Complaint's jurisdictional
allegations that created doubt as to the existence of the
requisite diversity of citizenship and (2) required counsel for
both sides to provide input as to the presence or absence of the
necessary amount in controversy. This memorandum opinion and
order further addresses both subjects in light of the parties'
post-Order submissions.

As to the issue of diversity vel non, plaintiffs' counsel
have since filed an Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Other
Relief--but that pleading's surface compliance with the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1332 (“Section 1332”) does not suffice
to enable this Court to discharge its obligation to assure the
existence of federal jurisdiction, as mandated by such cases as

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

is all that Amended Complaint 41 says as to the members of | \


Tolemac, LLC (“Tolemac,” a limited liability company that is one
of the three plaintiffs):

Tolemac's members are citizens of the States of

Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland,

Massachussetts [sic], Nevada, New Mexico, New York,

Oregon, and Vermont, and of the Canadian Providence

[sic] of Ontario. No member of Tolemac is a citizen of

the State of Illinois.

Given the sometimes intricate (and often misunderstood) rules
defining the relevant citizenship for Section 1332 purposes, that
sort of conclusory characterization that contains no
identification of just whose citizenship is relevant--that is, no
identification of each of the members themselves coupled with

the necessary information as to the members' respective

states of citizenship--does not suffice.

This Court has also received submissions from the parties as
to the other branch of diversity jurisdiction--the presence or
the absence (as defendant Gerald Jackson would have it) of the
requisite amount in controversy. Based on those submissions, it
cannot fairly be said at this threshold stage of the case that
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking on that score. What does
remain for a further look, then, is only the issue of citizenship
of all of the members of Tolemac.

Accordingly plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to file in this
Court's chambers on or before February 25, 2002 (with a copy

contemporaneously delivered to defense counsel) an appropriate

supplement to the Amended Complaint that identifies each member