Filed: Nov. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . On October 29, 2019, the court entered an order to show cause, instructing the parties to demonstrate the citizenship of the two defendants to establish subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 26). The parties responded on November 12, 2019, with an explanation and supporting documentation demonstrating the citizenship of the parties (ECF No. 28). Specifically, defendant Barkman Honey, LLC, is 100% owned by Barkman Inc., a Delaware corporation with i
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . On October 29, 2019, the court entered an order to show cause, instructing the parties to demonstrate the citizenship of the two defendants to establish subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 26). The parties responded on November 12, 2019, with an explanation and supporting documentation demonstrating the citizenship of the parties (ECF No. 28). Specifically, defendant Barkman Honey, LLC, is 100% owned by Barkman Inc., a Delaware corporation with it..
More
ORDER
JAMES P. O'HARA, Magistrate Judge.
On October 29, 2019, the court entered an order to show cause, instructing the parties to demonstrate the citizenship of the two defendants to establish subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 26). The parties responded on November 12, 2019, with an explanation and supporting documentation demonstrating the citizenship of the parties (ECF No. 28). Specifically, defendant Barkman Honey, LLC, is 100% owned by Barkman Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Kansas. Defendant True Source Honey, LLC has approximately 680 members who reside in numerous states (including Illinois) and foreign countries. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Illinois.
The court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case based on these assertions. The minimal diversity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (requiring any plaintiff class member to be diverse from any defendant) is satisfied by the diversity between plaintiff and Barkman. Accordingly, the court finds that the parties have satisfied their burden of showing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
