Ellison Technologies, Inc. v. Dynamic Machine Works LLC
| Ellison Technologies, Inc. and Dynamic Machine Works LLC |
| 1:2020cv06404 |
| October 28, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 17, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand , COUNTERCLAIM filed by Dynamic Machine Works LLC against Ellison Technologies, Inc. . by Dynamic Machine Works LLC(Kozar, Ronald) |
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court grants the motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (Dckt. No. #17 ). Attorney Ronald Joseph Kozar for Dynamic Machine Works LLC is added as counsel of record for Dynamic Machine Works LLC. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 19 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant's motion for extension (Dckt. No. #15 ) is hereby granted in part. Defendant was served with process on November 2, 2020, so the answer was due on November 23, 2020. (Dckt. No. #7 ) On the due date, Defendant filed a motion for an extension (Dckt. No. #11 ), based on the notion that the recovery of the machine was underway and "may enable the parties to conclude a settlement, which they are trying to do." Id. This Court granted the requested extension, extending the deadline to December 14, 2020. (Dckt. No. #14 ) Defendant now moves for a second extension, to January 4, 2021, based on the notion that the machine was returned and that Plaintiff made a settlement offer. But Plaintiff Ellison responds that "Defendant has failed to engage in any further settlement discussions" since the last extension. (Dckt. No. #16 ) So, Defendant is seeking an extension based on the fact that Plaintiff made a settlement offer, even though Defendant has not responded to that settlement offer. The answer is due on December 21, 2020. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 18 REPLY by Dynamic Machine Works LLC to response in opposition to motion #16 , MOTION by Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC for extension of time to file answer #15 (Green, Colby) |
| Filing 17 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-17741517. (Kozar, Ronald) |
| Filing 16 RESPONSE by Ellison Technologies, Inc.in Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC for extension of time to file answer #15 (Stetson, Roger) |
| Filing 15 MOTION by Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC for extension of time to file answer (Green, Colby) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant's motion to withdraw the motion for extra time (Dckt. No. #13 ) is granted. Defendant's motion for extra time to file a jurisdictional statement (Dckt. No. #10 ) is deemed withdrawn. Defendant's motion for extra time to respond to the complaint (Dckt. No. #11 ) is hereby granted. The response to the complaint is due on December 14, 2020. The parties are discussing settlement. If Defendant needs another extension in light of settlement negotiations, Defendant can file a motion. The Court reviewed the jurisdictional statements filed by Plaintiff (Dckt. No. #10 ) and Defendant (Dckt. No. #12 ) and confirmed that there is complete diversity of citizenship. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 13 MOTION by Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC to withdraw extension of time #10 (Green, Colby) |
| Filing 12 Statement of Owners of LLC Defendant, and their Citizenship STATEMENT by Dynamic Machine Works LLC (Green, Colby) |
| Filing 11 MOTION by Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint, #1 UNOPPOSED (Green, Colby) |
| Filing 10 MOTION by Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC for extension of time UNOPPOSED (Green, Colby) |
| Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC by Colby Michael Green (Green, Colby) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Ellison Technologies, Inc. to text entry,,,,,,,, #6 Order to Show Cause (Sear, Caroline) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ellison Technologies, Inc. as to Dynamic Machine Works LLC on 11/2/2020, answer due 11/23/2020. (Sear, Caroline) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the complaint (Dckt. No. #1 ), which invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC is an Ohio limited liability company. An LLC is a citizen of the states of its members. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003). The state of its registration makes no difference. Plaintiff alleges "[u]pon information and belief" that "all of Defendant's members reside and are domiciled in Ohio and are citizens of Ohio." See Cplt., para. 12. A jurisdictional allegation based "upon information and belief" is not good enough. See America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, LP, 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992); State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Morderosian, 234 F.3d 1274 (7th Cir. 2000). "[A]ffidavits alleging citizenship based on 'the best of my knowledge and belief' are, by themselves, insufficient to show citizenship in a diversity case." Medical Assur. Co., Inc. v. Hellman, 610 F.3d 371, 376 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[A]n appellant's naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship is never sufficient."); Leggitt Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 1416833, at *3 (S.D. Ill. 2010) (citing hordes of cases for the "extremely well settled" proposition that "allegations made on information and belief are insufficient to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of a federal court"). By November 20, 2020, Plaintiff shall show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant shall file a statement that identifies all of its members individually, and discloses their citizenship. See Guar. Nat'l Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 1010 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996). Defendant's statement is due on the deadline for responding to the complaint. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Dynamic Machine Works LLC (ke, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by January 13, 2021. 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, ) Modified on 11/2/2020 (jjr, ). |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jg, ) |
| Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Ellison Technologies, Inc. by Roger Hudson Stetson (Stetson, Roger) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Ellison Technologies, Inc. by Caroline H Sear (Sear, Caroline) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Sear, Caroline) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Ellison Technologies, Inc.; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-17589303. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit MX2100, #2 Exhibit DVF 6500 x2, #3 Exhibit DVF 5000, #4 Exhibit Aftermarket, #5 Exhibit DVF 6500, #6 Exhibit 2 DVF 6500s, #7 Exhibit PUMA2100ST, #8 Exhibit DVF 5000, #9 Exhibit Accessories, #10 Exhibit Email)(Sear, Caroline) |
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
| Search for this case: Ellison Technologies, Inc. v. Dynamic Machine Works LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Ellison Technologies, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Roger Hudson Stetson |
| Represented By: | Caroline H Sear |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Dynamic Machine Works LLC | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
