America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | 92-1130,Nos. 92-1046,s. 92-1046 |
| Citation | 980 F.2d 1072 |
| Parties | AMERICA'S BEST INNS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. BEST INNS OF ABILENE, L.P., Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Ronald E. Osman, Sara L. Nierste, Michael W. Maurizio (argued), Osman & Associates, Dongola, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Rebecca Jackson (argued), Bryan Cave, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant-appellee.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, and WOOD, JR., Senior Circuit Judge.
Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., is the defendant in this suit, brought under the diversity jurisdiction. A limited partnership is a citizen of every state of which any partner, general or limited, is a citizen. Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 108 L.Ed.2d 157 (1990). Yet the complaint identified defendant as "a Kansas limited partnership", without elaboration. The answer to the complaint did not catch the problem; neither did the magistrate judge, who conducted a trial and entered judgment on the merits.
Circuit Rule 28(b)(1), which is designed to focus the attention of the parties on facts of jurisdictional significance, provides: "If any party is an unincorporated association or partnership, the [jurisdictional] statement [in the appellant's brief] shall identify the citizenship of all members." Ignoring this rule, appellant America's Best Inns equated limited partnerships with corporations. Its jurisdictional statement recites: "Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., is a Kansas limited partnership with its principal place of business in the State of Kansas." The partnership, as appellee, was likewise oblivious to the rule and used identical language.
At oral argument the court reminded the parties of the need to establish complete diversity of citizenship. In particular, the court stated that it would be necessary to enlarge the record to show the citizenship of every partner as of the date the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. One document in the record lists 22 partners on the date the parties entered into their franchise agreement: one corporation, one trust, and twenty natural persons. The partnership may have acquired or lost partners between July 31, 1984, the date of that agreement, and 1990, when the litigation commenced. But the court reminded counsel that whether or not the list was current, counsel needed to specify the citizenships of the natural persons, of all trustees, and the two citizenships of each corporate partner.
Both parties have filed their post-argument jurisdictional memoranda. The lawyer representing defendant partnership filed an affidavit whose full operative language is:
Based upon my personal knowledge, each of the limited partners of Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., was a resident of Kansas at the time the Complaint in the underlying action, Cause No. 90-C-4087, was filed.
Robert Brewer, the president of the corporate plaintiff, also filed an affidavit stating in material part:
[T]o the best of my knowledge and belief complete diversity exists in the above referenced appeals and in the underlying action, and that none of the limited partners of Best Inns of Abilene, L.P. were citizens of the State of Illinois nor of the State of Delaware at the time the complaint was filed[.]
Neither of these statements establishes the citizenships of all partners, and we therefore remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
First, neither of the statements says anything about the general partner or partners in the limited partnership. In July 1984 the sole general partner was Best Inns of Abilene, Inc. Was this corporation the general partner in 1990? If so, in what state is this firm incorporated? Where is its principal place of business? Were there other (or additional) general partners by 1990? The court instructed the parties to provide this information; neither side did so. Plaintiff is incorporated in Delaware; for all the record shows, Best Inns of Abilene, Inc., may be incorporated there too. (This is not a local Kansas enterprise; the partnership operates a motel in Texas.)
Second, neither of the affidavits identifies the limited partners at the time the complaint was filed. It is impossible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc.
...case of removal) by the notice of removal, and that no flaws such as those referred to in America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.1992) (per curiam) exist to defeat federal jurisdiction.4 Massac County is at the very southeastern tip of the Stat......
-
Chiropractic v. Stratacare Inc.
...can be invoked only by allegations made on personal knowledge, not information and belief. See America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.1992); Frakes v. B & J Food Serv. Equip. of Mo., Inc., Civil No. 10–247–GPM, 2010 WL 1418567, at *2 (S.D.Ill. ......
-
Smith v. City of Chicago, 97 C 1865.
...Pollution Control Indust. of America, Inc. v. Van Gundy, 21 F.3d 152, 155 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994); America's Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.1992); Viacom, Inc. v. Flynn, No. 96 C 3131, 1997 WL 97697, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Feb.27, 1997). Moreover, "a corpor......
-
Bahoor v. Varonis Sys., Inc.
...(citizenship means domicile, or physical presence with the intent to stay, and not residence); Am.'s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P. , 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.1992) (“In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). But Bahoor's underlying complaint does alleg......
-
Jurisdictional procedure.
...2010). (7.) See id. at 266-67 (noting that the district court never addressed plaintiff's showing of standing). (8.) Id. at 268-69. (9.) 980 F.2d 1072, 1073 (7th Cir. (10.) Id. (11.) Id. at 1073-74. (12.) No. 12-70012, 2012 WL 1933560, at *1 (5th Cir. May 29, 2012). (13.) Id. (14.) McCulloc......