CBRE, Inc., as agent for CR-Chicago 125 South Clark Street LLC v. 125 S Clark Street Tenant LLC
| CBRE, Inc., as agent for CR-Chicago 125 South Clark Street LLC and CBRE, Inc. |
| 125 S Clark Street Tenant LLC |
| 1:2023cv02336 |
| April 13, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John J Tharp |
| Rent Lease & Ejectment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 REMAND with certified copy of order dated 4/17/2023 and letter to Circuit Court of Cook County via email. (axk, ) |
| Filing 7 MAIL RETURNED, for document #5 , #6 sent to Greg Carey Schiff returned as undeliverable, return to sender. No new contact information received; therefore future mailings will not be sent until a new address is provided to the Clerk's Office using a Notification of Change of Address or Pro Se Appearance form (axk, ) |
| ***Civil Case Terminated. (air, ) |
Filing 6
ORDER: The defendant's notice of removal #1 fails to invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. To remove a case to federal court, a defendant must establish the jurisdictional requirements with "competent proof," evidence which proves to a reasonable probability that jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441; Chase v. Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424 (7th Cir. 1997). The defendant here does not adequately allege the citizenship of the plaintiff CR-Chicago 125 South Clark Street LLC, which the defendant alleges is the real party in interest. The defendant's removal notice acknowledges that the plaintiff LLC's members' citizenships are unknown, yet it still alleges that there is diversity "on information and belief." That is insufficient; such allegations must be made on personal knowledge, not on information and belief. Am.'s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Qin v. Deslongchamps, 31 F.4th 576, 578 (7th Cir. 2022). The defendant also allegesthat it has encountered difficulties in obtaining confirmation of the plaintiff LLC's members' citizenships and therefore seeks the Court's leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery. Courts have occasionally permitted limited jurisdictional discovery where a plaintiff is unable to obtain information as to the membership of an LLC. See Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Tangiers Int'l LLC, No. 18 C 2115, 2018 WL 3770085 at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2018) (collecting cases). At the same time, "there is a strong presumption in favor of remand." Garbie v. Chrysler Corp., 8 F. Supp. 2d 814 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (citing Jones v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 541 F.2d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 1976)). This Court would only permit such jurisdictional discovery if the notice of removal (1) provided a sufficient basis to infer that diversity was at least likely and (2) alleged that the plaintiff has been resisting efforts to obtain its members' information in a manner that is obstructive (e.g., failing to respond to discovery propounded in state court), rather than simply uncooperative (e.g., not answering informal requests by email or phone). Otherwise, the general requirement that jurisdiction must be adequately invoked at the time of removal would be of little consequence. Neither is true of the notice of removal here. The only facts in the notice of removal even remotely suggesting that the plaintiff's citizenship is diverse from the defendant's is "based on conversations with counsel for [plaintiff], [defendant] understands that the ultimate owner of [plaintiff] may reside in Germany." But even if the defendant were right that the "ultimate owner" of the plaintiff (whatever that may mean for a possibly multi-member LLC) resides in Germany, residence is not domicile for citizenship purposes. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 4/17/2023. Mailed notice. (axk, )
|
| Filing 5 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to counsel of record. (axk, ) |
| 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. (khg, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (khg, ) |
| Filing 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by 125 S Clark Street Tenant LLC (Webb, Julia) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant 125 S Clark Street Tenant LLC by Julia C. Webb (Webb, Julia) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Webb, Julia) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case number (23 M1 703686) filed by 125 S Clark Street Tenant LLC Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20539074. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Webb, Julia) |
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.
