Nuvalo, LLC v. SingleHop LLC. et al
Plaintiff: Nuvalo, LLC
Defendant: SingleHop LLC. and Internap Holding LLC
Case Number: 1:2022cv01051
Filed: February 28, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Mary M Rowland
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330 Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 18, 2022 Filing 15 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 4/18/2022. Mailed notice. (dm, )
April 18, 2022 Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: This Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's jurisdictional supplement #13 . Plaintiff brings a complaint for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and injunctive relief against Defendants SingleHop, LLC and Internap Holding LLC; it alleges diversity as the basis for federal jurisdiction. #1 . In its jurisdictional supplement, Plaintiff states that it is an LLC whose sole member is a citizen of Washington. Plaintiff states that Defendant Internap Holding LLC is the sole member of the other Defendant, SingleHop LLC. Plaintiff further states that, despite diligently searching through publicly available records, it has been unable to find public information detailing the members of Internap Holding LLC. Plaintiff has conferred with defense counsel, who informed Plaintiff that "there are approximately 123 corporate entities" that are members of Internap Holding LLC, and that approximately 17 of those are LLCs. Defense counsel, however, has also represented that the citizenships of those LLCs are not publicly available. Plaintiff says it "is not aware of any means by which it could obtain additional information" as to the citizenships of those LLCs and has not requested further jurisdictional discovery. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's attempts to ascertain this information; the Seventh Circuit has recently commented that in some states, LLCs' membership "can be anonymous," and that even in states that do not formally permit anonymous LLCs, "it can be challenging to ascertain the citizenship of the LLC's members from publicly available sources." Qin v. Deslongchamps, --- F.4th ----, No. 21-1873, 2022 WL 1114408, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022). Nonetheless, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized "in no uncertain terms, that if jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship," the party invoking federal jurisdiction "shall identify the citizenship of each party to the litigation." Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). Because "the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members," when a party is organized as an LLC, the jurisdictional statement to the court "must identify the citizenship of each of its members as of the date the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those members have members, the citizenship of those members as well." Id. at 534. Despite giving Plaintiff multiple opportunities to establish diversity of citizenship and file jurisdictional supplements since the complaint was filed on February 28, 2022, see #3 ; #11 , Plaintiff "cannot establish diversity because [it] does not know who the members of the LLC are and whether any of them has the same citizenship as [it] does for diversity purposes." Qin, 2022 WL 1114408, at *4. If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wis. Hous. & Econ. Dev. Auth., 776 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015) ("federal courts are obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte"). Because Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that this Court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this matter, this Court dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (dm, )
April 15, 2022 Filing 13 Jurisdictional STATEMENT by Nuvalo, LLC (LaFratta, Brian)
March 30, 2022 Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: On or before 5/13/22, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Rowland's name and then again on the link entitled 'Initial Status Conference.' The litigants are further ordered to review all of Judge Rowland's standing orders and the information available on her webpage. The court will enter a scheduling order in response. Mailed notice. (dm, )
March 23, 2022 Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's unopposed motion for an extension to complete its jurisdictional supplement #10 is granted. Plaintiff shall file its jurisdictional supplement on or before 4/15/22. Mailed notice. (dm, )
March 22, 2022 Filing 10 Jurisdictional STATEMENT by Nuvalo, LLC and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Wadulak, Jenna)
March 14, 2022 Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Internap Holding LLC, SingleHop LLC. by Marc Craig Smith Appearnce for Singlehop LLC and Internap Holdings LLC (Smith, Marc)
March 14, 2022 Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by SingleHop LLC.. All Defendants. (Smith, Marc)
March 3, 2022 Filing 7 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Nuvalo, LLC (LaFratta, Brian)
March 3, 2022 Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Motion to appear pro hac vice by Mark C. Del Bianco #5 is granted. Counsel is reminded to become familiar with this court's local rules (including the rules requiring local counsel and describing this court's trial bar). Mailed notice. (dm, )
March 2, 2022 Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-19206319. for Mark C. Del Bianco (Wadulak, Jenna)
March 2, 2022 Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Nuvalo, LLC by Brian K LaFratta (LaFratta, Brian)
March 2, 2022 Filing 3 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: In light of Plaintiff's invocation of diversity as the basis for federal jurisdiction #1 , on or before 3/22/22, Plaintiff shall file a jurisdictional supplement as a separate docket entry. Plaintiff is reminded that allegations based upon "information and belief" are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction in the Seventh Circuit. See Brickstructures, Inc. v. Coaster Dynamix, Inc., 2017 WL 4310671, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2017); Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004). In addition, because an LLC takes the citizenship of EACH of its members, an LLC's jurisdictional statement must specifically set forth "the citizenship of each of its members" as of the date the complaint was filed. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff must also confirm whether Defendants are LLCs or corporations. If they are LLCs, Plaintiff shall list the citizenships of each of their members. If, as alleged, they are corporations, Plaintiff shall definitively provide (not upon information or belief) their States of incorporation and principal places of business. Failure to file the supplement as directed may result in a dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mailed notice. (dm, )
March 1, 2022 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (lma, )
March 1, 2022 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. (lma, )
February 28, 2022 Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Wadulak, Jenna)
February 28, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Nuvalo, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-19199683.(Wadulak, Jenna)

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 this case: Nuvalo, LLC v. SingleHop LLC. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nuvalo, LLC
Represented By: Jenna Nicole Wadulak
Represented By: Brian K LaFratta
Represented By: Mark C. Del Bianco
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 ]
Defendant: SingleHop LLC.
Represented By: Marc Craig Smith
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 ]
Defendant: Internap Holding LLC
Represented By: Marc Craig Smith
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.


Why Is My Information Online?