Snyder v. Stewart Law Group et al
| Charles Snyder |
| Stewart Law Group, Robert C howard and Kareen O'Brien |
| 1:2021cv06314 |
| November 24, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on defendants' motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. #11 ). Plaintiff's response is due by February 1, 2022. Defendants' reply is due by February 15, 2022. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 11 MOTION by Defendants Kareen O'Brien, Robert C howard, Stewart Law Group to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under FRCP 12(b)(2) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Wolf, Thomas) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the supplemental jurisdictional statement (Dckt. No. #8 ). Defendant Stewart Law Group PLLC has one member, who is a citizen of Arizona. So there is complete diversity of citizenship. The motion for an extension of time (Dckt. No. #9 ) is hereby granted. The responses to the complaint are due on January 4, 2022 (not December 31, 2021, in the holiday spirit). Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Defendants Kareen O'Brien, Stewart Law Group, Robert C howard for extension of time to file answer (Wolf, Thomas) |
| Filing 8 Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement in Support of Defendants' Removal by Kareen O'Brien, Stewart Law Group, Robert C howard (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Wolf, Thomas) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the notice of removal, which is facially defective. Defendants removed this case from state court, based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff Charles Snyder is a citizen of Illinois. Defendant Stewart Law Group is a professional limited liability company. The notice of removal says that Stewart Law Group is a "limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona," with a "principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona." But Stewart Law Group is a limited liability company, not a corporation. And for jurisdictional purposes, the difference is everything. Unlike a corporation, an LLC is not a citizen of the state of registration and state of its principal place of business. Instead, an LLC is a citizen wherever its members are located, as the Seventh Circuit has made clear time and time again. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003); 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). But the notice of removal provides no information at all about the members of Stewart Law Group. The Court does not know anything about who the members are, let alone where they have their citizenship. So the notice of removal does not contain the basic information that this Court needs to assess whether it has jurisdiction. Defendants must file a supplemental jurisdictional statement by December 14, 2021, and show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 6 MAILED notice of removal letter to counsel of record. (nsf, ) |
| MAILED copy of the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to to Charles Snyder. (nsf, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by February 7, 2022. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties 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. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. 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. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. 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, ) |
| Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Kareen O'Brien, Stewart Law Group, Robert C howard by Josh M. Kantrow (Kantrow, Josh) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Kareen O'Brien, Stewart Law Group, Robert C howard by Thomas M. Wolf (Wolf, Thomas) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Wolf, Thomas) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from DuPage County, case number (2021L001141) filed by Kareen O'Brien, Stewart Law Group, Robert C howard Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18907567. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Wolf, Thomas) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ey, ) |
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.
