# BETTS v. BROWN

> District Court, S.D. Indiana · January 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10773342

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Indiana
- **Decided:** January 2, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10773342

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10773342. Public record. Not legal advice.