Adams, as Trustee for Robin Adams Living Trust Dtd 05-24-05 v. Parcel C LLC et al
| Trustee Robin J Adams, as Trustee for Robin Adams Living Trust Dtd |
| Parcel C LLC and Magellan Marketing Group LLC |
| 1:2020cv05302 |
| September 8, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendants' motion for extension of time (Dckt. No. #8 ) is hereby granted. Plaintiff filed this case on September 8, 2020, a little more than a month ago, and served Defendants with process on September 17, 2020. (Dckt. No. #6 ) The response to the complaint was due on October 8, 2020. Id. This Court also ordered Defendants to serve a detailed jurisdictional statement by the same deadline. (Dckt. No. #3 ) The Court imposed that requirement because the jurisdictional allegations of Plaintiff's complaint were facially inadequate, as this Court previously explained. Id. Plaintiff invoked this Court's diversity jurisdiction but failed to establish that the parties are, in fact, diverse. So Plaintiff didn't do the work of establishing that this case belongs here in the first place. Defendants filed a timely motion for an extension, and asked for leave to file their answer and their response to this Court's Order by November 13, 2020. (Dckt. No. #8 ) That request, in the grand scheme of things, was modest. Defendants requested an extension of about a month (35 days). The overall time between serving the complaint (on September 17) and filing the answer (on November 13) would be only 57 days. That two-month period is consistent with the amount of time that a defendant receives (60 days) when there is a waiver of service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3) ("A defendant who, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver need not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent...."). Defendants gave a number of legitimate reasons for the request, including the significant task of gathering the information for the jurisdictional statement, as well as other professional demands on defense counsel. In addition, defense counsel's daughter is getting married on October 17, 2020, which will require some much-deserved attention. Yet for whatever reason, Plaintiff opposed the request, claiming that a 35-day extension is too long, and that a 21-day extension feels about right. One wonders why Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's counsel thought that it would be a good idea to oppose this reasonable request. Part of the reason for the request is the fact that Plaintiff's own complaint is jurisdictionally deficient. This Court could have dismissed Plaintiff's complaint sua sponte, but decided to give Defendants a chance to save Plaintiff's complaint and establish subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff claims that it will be prejudiced because it will delay judgment in its favor by two weeks, but it is a bit early to celebrate victory on the merits. The request for an extension of a little more than a month is reasonable under the Federal Rules, and is understandable given the professional and personal demands on defense counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). And from a what-goes-around-comes-around perspective, opposing this request (at the outset of the case, no less) was a bad idea. One wonder if Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel plan to ask for more time at any point in this case. The motion (Dckt. No. #8 ) is granted. The answer and the jurisdictional statement are due by November 13, 2020. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE by Robin J Adams, as Trustee for Robin Adams Living Trust Dtd 05-24-05in Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Magellan Marketing Group LLC, Parcel C LLC for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint,, #1 #8 (Levin, Scott) |
| Filing 8 MOTION by Defendants Magellan Marketing Group LLC, Parcel C LLC for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint,, #1 (Spathis, George) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Magellan Marketing Group LLC, Parcel C LLC by George J. Spathis (Spathis, George) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin J Adams, as Trustee for Robin Adams Living Trust Dtd 05-24-05 as to Parcel C LLC on 9/17/2020, answer due 10/8/2020. (Levin, Scott) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin J Adams, as Trustee for Robin Adams Living Trust Dtd 05-24-05 as to Magellan Marketing Group LLC on 9/17/2020, answer due 10/8/2020. (Levin, Scott) |
| Filing 4 Citizenship STATEMENT by Robin J Adams, as Trustee for Robin Adams Living Trust Dtd 05-24-05 (Levin, Scott) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Magellan Marketing Group LLC, Parcel C LLC (jg, ) |
| Filing 3 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the complaint, which invokes this Court's diversity jurisdiction. The two defendants are limited liability companies. A limited liability company is a citizen of the state of each of its members. See Martin v. Living Essentials, LLC, 653 Fed. Appx. 482, 485 (7th Cir. 2016) ("[T]he home 'base' of a limited liability company, or LLC, is irrelevant, given that an LLC has the citizenship of each of its members."); Thomas v. Guardmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) ("For diversity jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members."); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he citizenship of an LLC for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members."); Fellowes, Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equip. Co., 759 F.3d 787, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2014). The jurisdictional allegations are incomplete. For example, one of the members of Defendant Parcel C LLC is Wanda Chicago Real Estate LLC, and one of the members of Wanda Chicago Real Estate LLC is Wanda Americas Commercial Properties. But Plaintiff does not disclose any information about the citizenship of Wanda Americas Commercial Properties, explaining that no information is available from the Illinois Secretary of State. Alleging "[o]n information and belief" that none of the members is a resident of Michigan is not good enough. Also, what matters for diversity of citizenship is citizenship, not residence. See Stoller v. Walworth County, 770 Fed. Appx. 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2019); RTP LLC v. ORIX Real Estate Capital, Inc., 827 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2016) ("Citizenship depends not on residence but on domicile, which means the place where a person intends to live in the long run. It is possible to reside in one state while planning to return to a long-term residence in another state."). On the due date for their response to the complaint, Defendants shall file a statement that identifies all of their members and discloses their citizenship. If any of their members are themselves LLCs, then the statement must identify their members and disclose their citizenship, too. The disclosures shall be complete so that the Court has all requisite information to determine the citizenship of the Defendants. Also, by September 18, Plaintiff shall file a statement disclosing where he is a citizen, not merely where he resides. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 2 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by November 23, 2020. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. The parties also must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cummings. Case assignment: Random assignment. (mp, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Robin J Adams, as Trustee for Robin Adams Living Trust Dtd 05-24-05; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-17405363. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Custom Plan, #2 Exhibit B - Purchase Agreement, #3 Exhibit B-1 - Attorney Rider, #4 Exhibit B-2 - Form Agreement, #5 Exhibit C - 06-22 E-Mail from Linnane, #6 Exhibit D - December E-Mails, #7 Exhibit E - March 10 E-Mails, #8 Exhibit F - March 12 E-Mail, #9 Exhibit G - April 9 E-Mail 1, #10 Exhibit H - April 9 E-Mail 2, #11 Exhibit I - 8101 Notice of Termination, #12 Civil Cover Sheet)(Levin, Scott) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
