2. That is particularly true as to the defendant

Group, which by its very description comprises a number of

corporations, not just one. Federal jurisdiction therefore

depends upon where each of those corporations is
incorporated.

Accordingly this Court will await an appropriate amendment
to the Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified here. If no
such amendment is received in this Court's chambers on or before
March 25, 2002, this Court will have no alternative other than to

dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Olle. © Mite

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 15, 2002


United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I, Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1885 DATE 3/15/2002
CASE Delaware Clothing Co. vs. Ohio Casualty Group
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
of the motion being presented]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) i) Brief in support of motion due

(3) 0 Answer brief to motion due___._ Reply to answer brief due

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon___set for at__

(5) a Status hearing set for 5/2/02 at 9:00 A.M..

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—at__.
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on_ at

(8) Oo {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) General Rule21 OO FRCP4i(a)(1) [ FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. This Court will await an appropriate amendment
to the Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified here. Ifno such amendment is received in this Court’s
chambers on or before March 25, 2002, this Court will have no alternative other than to dismiss this
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Pretrial schedule on reverse of minute order)

dl) {For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.] order attached to the original minute

Document |
Number

we

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. vot
umber of woes

AR 18 2007

date docketed

Y | Notices mailed by judge’s statt.

=z

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

docketing deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
visiz002

OD. a late mailed notice
courtroom Zep CU) fb seated
SN deputy’s x
initials :

oh ea Bate/time received in
central Clerk's Office svt ep intins



MEMORANDUM ORDER

This order is being entered shortly after the filing of the
Complaint. Counsel for plaintiff(s) are ordered to cause a copy of
this order to be delivered forthwith to each defendant in the same
manner that process has been or is being served on such defendant.

There will be a status hearing--a "scheduling conference," as
that term is used in attached Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 16(b) at 9:00
a.m. on May 2, 2002 (the "Status Hearing Date"). Counsel for
plaintiff(s) and for each defendant that has been served with process
or has appeared at least 28 days before that Status Hearing Date are
ordered to meet not later than 14 days before the Status Hearing Date
to comply with the provisions of attached Rule 26(f)and this District
Court’s LR 26.1 (also attached). Counsel for the parties are urged to
undertake serious settlement efforts before the scheduled Status
Hearing when no major investment in counsel’s time (and clients’
money) has yet taken place. If such efforts are unsuccessful, counsel
should be prepared at the Status Hearing to discuss briefly their
proposed discovery plan and other subjects appropriate for inclusion
in the scheduling order as referred to in Rule 16(b).

Instead of the scope of mandatory initial disclosure prescribed
by Rule 26(a)(1) as amended effective December 1, 2000, each party is
ordered to provide to other parties the broader categories of
information that were prescribed in Rules 26(a) (1) (A) and (B) before

such amendment (see copies attached)

» If any party is unrepresented by counsel, that party must

comply with this order personally.


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

EASTERN DIVISION GREKETES

DELAWARE CLOTHING CO., INC., MAR 1 8 2002

Plaintiff,

OHIO CASUALTY GROUP OF
INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al.,

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 02 C 1885
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Delaware Clothing Co., Inc. (“Delaware”) has just instituted
this breach of contract action against Ohio Casualty Group of
Insurance Companies (“Group”) and Ohio Casualty Insurance
Company, seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction on diversity of
citizenship grounds. Because Delaware's Complaint is deficient
in establishing such jurisdiction, this memorandum order is
issued sua sponte to require its counsel to correct that flaw.

Complaint 2 does the job properly as to Delaware itself,
for it identifies both facets of its corporate citizenship under
28 U.S.C. §1332(c) (1) (“Section 1332(c)(1)”). And Complaint 4410
and 17 satisfactorily establish the over-$75,000 amount in
controversy that forms one prong of the diversity criteria. But
Count I 42 lacks the information necessary to establish the
requisite total diversity under Section 1332(c) (1):

1. All that is said about both defendants is that
their principal place of business is in Ohio. Nothing is

alleged as to their respective states of citizenship.