Butler v. Target Corporation et al
| Lawrence M Butler, Sr |
| Target Corporation and ArciTerra Companies, LLC |
| 3:2018cv02068 |
| November 12, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Mark A Beatty |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty. Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson no longer assigned to the case. (lmb) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE OF MODIFICATION re #17 Motion to Clarify filed by Lawrence M Butler, Sr. Incorrect event selected. Docket text has been modified to reflect the correct event. No further action is required by the filer in relation to this notification. (kdb)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiff's State Court Complaint by Lawrence M Butler, Sr. (Anthony, Joslyn) Modified on 12/5/2018 (kdb). |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Theodore J. MacDonald, Jr on behalf of Target Corporation (MacDonald, Theodore) |
| Filing 15 CJRA TRACK B assigned: Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/24/2019 at 9:30 AM in East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel. Presumptive Jury Trial month set for November, 2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent to Magistrate Judge)(drb) |
Filing 14
ORDER: The complaint attached to Defendant Target's Notices of Removal is illegible due to the poor quality of the copies attached. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a copy of the complaint on or before December 13, 2018. (Action due by 12/13/2018). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/29/2018. (bak)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE by Target Corporation Second Amended Notice of Removal (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Summons, #2 Exhibit Complaint, #3 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, #4 Exhibit Notice of Filing Notice of Removal, #5 Exhibit Form 10-K, #6 Exhibit Consent to Notice of Removal)(Deterding, David) |
|
Filing 12
SECOND ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION: It has come to the Court's attention that Defendant has made jurisdictional allegations based upon "information and belief" (See Doc. 11, p. 3). It is well settled in the Seventh Circuit that jurisdictional allegations based upon information and belief are insufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to file an Amended Notice of Removal that corrects the defects in its pleading of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Amended Notice of Removal shall be filed no later than December 12, 2018.Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/28/2018. (bak)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE by Target Corporation Amended Notice of Removal (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Summons, #2 Exhibit Complaint, #3 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, #4 Exhibit Notice of Filing Notice of Removal, #5 Exhibit Form 10-K, #6 Exhibit Consent to Notice of Removal)(Deterding, David) |
| Filing 10 Corporate Disclosure Statement by ArciTerra Companies, LLC. (Gottschalk, James) |
| Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint by ArciTerra Companies, LLC.(Gottschalk, James) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by James A. Gottschalk on behalf of ArciTerra Companies, LLC (Gottschalk, James) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION: This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007) ("It is the responsibility of a court to make an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case."). The law of this Circuit plainly provides that if a party is an LLC, its citizenship depends on the citizenship of each of its members. See, e.g., Copeland v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 675 F.3d 1040, 1043 (7th Cir. 2012) ("a limited liability company's citizenship includes every state of which any unit holder is a citizen"). Citizenship must be "traced through multiple levels," as anything less can result in dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). The Notice of Removal indicates that Defendant ArciTerra Companies, LLC's sole member is CSL Investments, LLC, but it does not list the members of CSL Investments, LLC. Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to file an Amended Notice of Removal no later than November 30, 2018, which properly sets forth the citizenship of all parties to this action. (Amended Pleadings due by 11/30/2018). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/16/2018. (bak)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, this case was removed from state court to this U.S. District Court. Section 1446(a) delineates the procedure for removing a case from state court to federal court and requires, inter alia, that the removing defendant furnish a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant. Because a jury may be demanded in a state court pleading that is not served upon the defendant(s) (e.g., an answer or a separately-filed jury demand), and this Courts civil cover sheet instructs attorneys to check the Jury Demand box only if a jury was requested in the complaint, the Court hereby DIRECTS the removing defendant(s) to file as a Supplement to Notice of Removal a copy of any state court answer or other pleading/paper which contains a jury demand OR a one-line statement that no jury was demanded by any party prior to removal. If a jury demand appears in the federal case record, no Supplement to Notice of Removal need be filed. In addition, attorneys are reminded that they must file a formal entry of appearance in this case. The removing defendant(s) shall comply with this directive within 14 days from the date of this Order. Supplement to Notice of Removal due by 11/27/2018. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/13/2018. (kdb)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 5 Notice of Judge Assignment. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel and Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson assigned. All future documents must bear case number 18-2068-NJR-DGW. If the parties consent to Magistrate Judge assignment, the consent form with instruction is attached for your convenience. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. (kdb) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint by Target Corporation.(Deterding, David) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by David J. Deterding on behalf of Target Corporation (Deterding, David) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Target Corporation. (Deterding, David) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from St. Clair County, case number 18-L-483 ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0754-3719084), filed by Target Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Summons, #2 Exhibit Complaint, #3 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, #4 Exhibit State Court Notice of Filing Notice of Removal of Civil Action, #5 Exhibit Form 10-K, #6 Exhibit ArciTerra Consent to Notice of Removal, #7 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Deterding, David) |
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 Southern 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.
