Bondpro Corporation v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc.
| Citation | 466 F.3d 562 |
| Decision Date | 19 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-3077.,05-3077. |
| Parties | BONDPRO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEMENS POWER GENERATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In our opinion deciding this appeal, we said:
Our Circuit Rule 28(a)(1) requires that the jurisdictional statement in a diversity suit name the states of which the parties are citizens. In violation of this rule, the jurisdictional statement in the plaintiff's brief fails to indicate the citizenship of the parties (both of which are corporations); it says only that they are "citizens of different states." The defendant's brief, compounding the violation, states that the plaintiff's jurisdictional statement is complete and correct.
463 F.3d 702, 703 (7th Cir.2006).
We ordered the parties to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for violating our rule. The rule is clear and serves the important purpose of assuring that the court does not exceed its jurisdiction. The parties apologized for the violation but suggested no excuse, let alone justification. Violations of the rule are distressingly common despite frequent warnings, see Hart v. Terminex Int'l, 336 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir.2003); Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, 312 F.3d 318 (7th Cir.2003) (per curiam); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Eastern Atlantic Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 742, 747-48 (7th Cir. 2001) (); Professional Service Network, Inc. v. American Alliance Holding Co., 238 F.3d 897, 902-03 (7th Cir.2001). The time has come to impose an exemplary public sanction in the hope of deterring further violations.
It is therefore ORDERED that counsel for the plaintiff—Peter M. Reinhardt, Nicholas J. Vivian, and Bakke Norman, S.C.— jointly, and counsel for the defendant— David T. Schultz, Teresa J. Kimker, Mark J. Girouard, and Halleland Lewis Nilan & Johnson, P.A.—also jointly, shall pay to the court as a sanction for violating Rule 28 the sum of $1,000.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felton v. Teel Plastics Inc.
...the accounting firm's members without stating the citizenship of each of the accounting firm's members”); BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation Inc., 466 F.3d 562 (7th Cir.2006) (sanctioning lawyers $1000 for failing to identify citizenship of parties). Although the parties did not incl......
-
Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc.
...with regard to the required contents of jurisdictional statements in diversity cases. See, e.g., BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc., 466 F.3d 562 (7th Cir.2006) (per curiam), and cases cited there; Hicklin Engineering, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir.2006); Wild v. ......
-
In re Witt
...in order to effectively deter both him and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. See, BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc., 466 F.3d 562, 563 (7th Cir.2006) (“The time has come to impose an exemplary public sanction in the hope of deterring further violations”); ......
-
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.
...in chambers). And we enforce our requirements in a manner calculated to induce compliance. See, e.g., BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc. , 466 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2006) (penalizing failures to comply with jurisdictional-statement requirements). Giving an affirmative statement th......
-
Seventh Circuit rules res ipsa loquitor inapplicable.
...sanction for the attorneys' incorrect jurisdictional statements in this case is set by BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc., 466 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2006), at $1,000. That the judges on the Seventh Circuit are particular about jurisdictional statements is not news. Nevertheless, t......