Tanisha Roberson v. Helzberg's Diamond Shops, LLC
| Helzberg's Diamond Shops, LLC, Tanisha Roberson and Helzberg |
| 1:2023cv00988 |
| February 17, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dckt. No. #7 ) and under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case is dismissed without prejudice. Each party shall bear their own fees and costs. All pending deadlines and hearings are stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Tanisha Roberson (Ostrow, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court took a look at the complaint in this new case. Plaintiff Tanisha Roberson filed suit against Helzberg's Diamond Shops, LLC. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Roberson is a "permanent resident" of Illinois, and that Defendant Helzberg is "organized under the laws of Missouri" with "its headquarters and principal place of business" in Missouri. The complaint invokes this Court's diversity jurisdiction, but the jurisdictional allegations are insufficient. Plaintiff's counsel botched both sides of the jurisdiction equation. So the complaint is stricken. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a natural person is determined by domicile, "and domicile is the place one intends to remain." Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (citizenship "depends on domicile -- that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the long run. An allegation of 'residence' is therefore deficient."); Altom Transp., Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 823 F.3d 416, 420 (7th Cir. 2016) ("A natural person is a citizen of the state in which she is domiciled... diversity is assessed at the commencement of the action, as defined by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 as the time of pleading"). Residence and domicile are not the same thing. Where a person is domiciled is what matters, not where a person resides. So, this Court does not know the citizenship of the Plaintiff. On the flipside, this Court does not know the citizenship of Defendant, either. A corporation and a limited liability company are not the same thing. The differences include citizenship. A corporation is a citizen where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business. But a limited liability company is a citizen wherever its members are citizens. It makes no difference where a limited liability company is registered, or where it has its principal place of business. For an LLC, the citizenship of its members is all that matters. 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). It is not good enough to state that a party is not a citizen of State X, Y, or Z. See West v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 951 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2020) ("We've held repeatedly that there's no such thing as a [state name here] partnership or LLC, that only the partners' or members' citizenships matter, and that their identities and citizenships must be revealed.") (brackets and emphasis in original); West, 951 F.3d at 829 ("We do not blithely accept assurances along the lines of 'no one on our side is a citizen of the opposing litigant's state.'"); Guar. Nat'l Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996); America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, LP, 980 F.2d 1072, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992) ("[N]either of the affidavits identifies the limited partners at the time the complaint was filed. It is impossible to determine diversity of citizenship without knowing who the persons in questions in question are. And litigants instructed to specify the partners and their citizenship may not respond with a vacuous statement such as 'no partner is a citizen of Illinois.' How can anyone tell?"). Here, Plaintiff sued an LLC, without identifying the members. Maybe there is, in fact, complete diversity. But based on the complaint, no one can tell. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 24, 2023. In the meantime, the complaint is stricken. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by May 22, 2023. 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 Plaintiff Tanisha Roberson by Jeffrey M. Ostrow (Ostrow, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Tanisha Roberson as to Helzberg's Diamond Shops, LLC on 2/24/2023, answer due 3/17/2023. (Shamis, Andrew) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Tanisha Roberson by Scott Edelsberg (Edelsberg, Scott) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Helzberg's Diamond Shops, LLC (kra, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Tanisha Roberson; Yes. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20359894. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Shamis, Andrew) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (emc, ) |
| 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. (emc, ) |
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.
