Minty Ordes Foren 77)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilino

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I, Shadur Sitting Judge if Other 4
or Magistrate Judge thun Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 € 709 DATE 2/6/2003
CASE Longview Aluminum, LLC vs. Alcoa, Inc.
TITLE

[In the tinltowing box (a) indicate the party tiling the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, dctendunt, 3rd party plaintif?, an (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented]

DOCKET ENTRY:

q) o Kiled motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Brief in support of motion due

(3) Answer brief to motion due_____..- Reply to answer brief due
(4) Ruling/Hearing on = =_sset for at _

Status hearing set for 3/26/03 at 9:00 A.M..

(6) Pretrial conterence[held/continued to] [scl for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) Trial[set for/re-set for] on at :
(8) [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to _ at .

a
DoOdoOomgoaa

‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs|by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCPA(m) = OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) UO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Longview’s counsel are ordered to file an
amendment to Complaint 1's first sentence in this Court’s chambers - - with a copy being transmitted
to Alcoa’s counsel if known or, if not, to Alcoa itself - - on or before February 14, 2003. If no timely
filing were to be made, or if the filing were to disclose the absence of diversity, this court would be
constrained to dismiss both the complaint and this action fo lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pretrial
order on reverse of minute order.

(il) [For further detail sce order on the reverse side of the original minute order, ] order attached {o the original minute

Document
Number

No notices required, udvised in open court,

No notic aired.
ives req number of uolias

FEB O7 2003

slate deka

oY | Notices mailed by judge's start,

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy 1 judge/magistrate judge ye

courtraom
8N deputy’s Vy
initials '

Datedtime received:in
central Clerks Office

uals deputy initials



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

EASTERN DIVISION FEB 07 2003
LONGVIEW ALUMINUM, LLC, )
Plaintiff,
Vv. } No. 03 C 709
ALCOA, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Longview Aluminum, LLC (“Longview”) has brought this action
against Alcoa, Inc. (“Alcoa”) under the auspices of diversity
jurisdiction, seeking what is characterized as “declaratory,
injunctive and other relief.” Thig memorandum order is issued
sua sponte to require Longview's counsel to cure an obvious
jurisdictional defect in its Complaint.

It might have been expected that an experienced firm of
federal practitioners capable of producing such a well-drafted
complaint’ would be well aware of a jurisdictional principle that
has been well established for something over four years. But
that ig clearly not the case, for even though Complaint qj2
identifies both facets of Alcoa's dual corporate citizenship
under 28 U.S.C. §1332(¢) (1), all that Complaint qi says in
purported reference to Longview's citizenship is this:

Longview Aluminum, LLC (“Longview”) is a Delaware

limited liability company, with its corporate
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois.

2 No opinion is expressed or implied here, of course, as to
the substantive viability of Longview's claim.

o



food

But ever since Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731

(7 Cir. 1998) it has been clear that neither the state of
organization nor the principal place of business of a limited
liability company is at all relevant for diversity of citizenship
purposes. Instead the determinative citizenship is that of each
of the members of that entity, a concept that requires peeling
through several layers if any of those members is in turn an
entity other than an individual or a corporation.

Accordingly Longview's counsel are ordered to file an
amendment to Complaint 1's first sentence (net a self-contained
Amended Complaint, as some lawyers in other cases, exhibiting
anticonservationist tendencies, have filed in the past) in this
Court's chambers~-with a copy being transmitted to Alcoa's
counsel if known or, if not, to Alcoa itself--on or before
February 14, 2003. If no timely filing were to be made, or if
the filing were to disclose the absence of diversity, this Court
would be constrained to dismiss both the Complaint and this
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. But in
anticipation that such would not likely be the case, this Court
is contemporaneously issuing its customary minute order setting

the procedures for and the timing of an initial status hearing

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

date.

Date: February 5, 2003