.

Complaint 1 and 2 in this Court’s chambers. In the absence of

such a timely amendment, this Court would be constrained to enter

Cle Pen OF ot,

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

an order of dismissal .?

Date: March 9, 2001

* No charge is to be made to Beverage by its counsel for

the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel’s
errors. Beverage’s counsel are ordered to apprise their client
to that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this
Court’s chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).

3


: 7
Minute Orde? Fem (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 1396 DATE 3/9/2001
CASE Beverage Realty, Inc. vs. Chatham Club, LLC
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) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Q Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for}on __set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on set for at.
) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 CFRCP41(a\(1) © FRCP41(a)(2).

ao if [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Plaintiffs counsel has to and including March

19, 2001 to file an appropriate amendment to Complaint paragraphs 1 and 2 in this Court’s chambers.

In the absence of such a timely amendment, this Court would be constrained to enter an order of

dismissal.
ab [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required, smiber of noti

AR 4 2 2001

VY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff,

Notified counsel by telephone.

date docketed
Docketing to mail notices. Cry)
Mail AO 450 form. docketing Aeputf initials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
79/2001
courtroom ate mailed notice
SN deputy’s SN
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

mailing deputy initials



ot

DOCKETED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 1 2 2001
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BEVERAGE REALTY, INC., )
Plaintiff,

v. No. 01 C 1396

CHATHAM CLUB, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Beverage Realty, Inc. (“Beverage”) has filed a Complaint
against Chatham Club, LLC (“Chatham”), seeking to invoke federal
jurisdiction under the diversity of citizenship provisions of 28
U.S.C. §1332.1 Because the Complaint is materially deficient in
setting out an essential predicate for such jurisdiction (the
citizenship of both parties), this sua sponte memorandum order is
issued to identify those flaws and to require that they be cured
within a short time frame, failing which this Court would be
constrained to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

First, even though Section 1332(c) (1) expressly identifies
the dual facets of corporate citizenship for diversity purposes,
Complaint §1 says nothing more as to Beverage other than that it
“is a Delaware corporation.” Accordingly an amendment is

required to conform to the Section 1332(c) (1) requirements.

1 All further references to Title 28's provisions will

simply take the form “Section--.”

2


W

As for Chatham, Complaint §2 says only that it “is an
Illinois limited liability company engaged in the business of
developing residential real estate projects.” But counsel is
expected to know? that our Court of Appeals teaches limited
liability companies are treated for diversity purposes just like
partnerships or other unincorporated associations, with the state
of citizenship of each member entering into the diversity
equation (Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7 Cir.
1998)). It is thus irrelevant that Complaint §2 would have been
insufficient in Section 1332(c) (1) terms even if Chatham had been
equated to corporate form, for here there is an even greater
(indeed, a total) deficiency in meeting the operative standard.

Such complete disregard of the plain requirements for
establishing diversity jurisdiction could well justify a current
dismissal of the Complaint and this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. But this Court has no desire to force
Beverage to invest another $150 filing fee if the defects
referred to here are readily curable. Accordingly its counsel is

granted until March 19, 2001 to file an appropriate amendment to

2 It appears that a Boston law firm is Beverage’s principal

counsel, so that the absence of knowledge on the part of its
members as to Seventh Circuit law might not be surprising (though
all counsel are obligated to inform themselves of the state of
the relevant law in such circumstances). But the co-counsel for
Beverage (one of whom signed the Complaint) are members of a
large and long-established multiple-office firm who are located
in its principal office here in Chicago.

2