ORDER

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

Yet again, Plaintiff LRM Holdings, Inc. ("LRM"), has filed a complaint against Defendant Computer Support, Inc. ("Computer Support"), alleging that the Court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this action but failing to properly allege the amount in controversy. [Dkt. 19.] Specifically, LRM alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, but omits the crucial "exclusive of interest and costs" language required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). [Id. at 1 ¶ 3.] LRM made this same mistake when it filed its initial complaint, [dkt. 1], and the Court specifically pointed out that failing and required LRM to file an Amended Complaint, [dkt. 10]. Although LRM corrected its mistake in its Amended Complaint, [dkt. 11], its most recent complaint fails to properly allege diversity jurisdiction for the same reasons as its initial complaint.

The Court is not being hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction, Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012), and a federal court always has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009).

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS LRM to file an Third Amended Complaint by September 11, 2013, properly setting forth a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Defendant Computer Support need not answer LRM's Complaint currently on file, [dkt. 19], but it should answer or otherwise respond as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when it is served with the Third Amended Complaint.