Opinion

BETTS v. BROWN

Court
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Filed
Jan 2, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.5%

a corporation has two places of citizenship: where it 1s incorporated and where it has its principal place of business

How later courts described this case

  • a corporation has two places of citizenship: where it 1s incorporated and where it has its principal place of business

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

SHAKYLA BETTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 1:24-cv-02197-JMS-MG

)

ARMOND BROWN, )

RUAN TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT )

SYSTEMS, INC., )

PRAXAIR, INC. a/k/a LINDE, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Defendants have filed a Notice of Removal in which they allege that this Court has

diversity jurisdiction over this matter. [Filing No. 1 at 2.] Praxair, Inc. a/k/a Linde Inc.,

and Ruan Transportation Management Systems, Inc. have each filed a Rule 7.1 Disclosure

Statement, but neither provides the party's citizenship. [Filing No. 7; Filing No. 10].

Further, defendant Armond Brown has not filed any Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement.

Although Mr. Brown is not himself a corporate party, Rule 7.1 still requires him to file a

disclosure statement.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) provides:

In an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), a

party or intervenor must, unless the court orders otherwise, file a disclosure

statement. The statement must name – and identify the citizenship of – every

individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor:

(A) when the action is filed in or removed to federal court, and

(B) when any later event occurs that could affect the court's jurisdiction under

§1332(a).

Each defendant must submit a new Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. The defendants are

reminded that an individual's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction "is the place

one intends to remain." Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002). And a

corporation is deemed a citizen of any state where it 1s incorporated and a citizen of the

state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see also Smoot

v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006) (a corporation has two

places of citizenship: where it 1s incorporated and where it has its principal place of

business). Each corporate defendant must provide both in order for the Court to determine

whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

Each defendant is ORDERED to file an Amended Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement by

January 21, 2025, which adequately sets forth that party's citizenship.

Date: 1/2/2025 ~ ant Mona Sta

(Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Distribution:

Reginald B. Bishop

THE BISHOP LAW FIRM

rbishop@thebishoplawfirm.law

Kyle Joseph Farris

JOHNSON & BELL

farrisk@jbltd.com

Edward W. Hearn

JOHNSON & BELL, PC (Crown Point)

hearne@jbltd.com

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.