01-1993 Meyerson v. Harrah's East Chicago Casino, et al.

Listen to this article

“Once more we find it necessary publicly to remind the bar of the existence and importance of 7th Cir. R. 28(a)(1), which requires parties to appeals in diversity cases to identify in their briefs the citizenship of each party to the appeal.”

“Despite the gross inadequacy of the jurisdictional allegations, the district judge proceeded to the merits and granted summary judgment for the defendants, precipitating this appeal. The appellant’s opening brief contains no jurisdictional statement and should therefore not have been accepted for filing at all. The appellees’ brief does contain a jurisdictional statement, but so far as bears on the existence of diversity jurisdiction states only that the district court ‘had diversity jurisdiction over this action.’ This is a gross violation of our Rule 28(a)(1). There is no reply brief. We are vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. That court may decide to give the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint showing that there is diversity jurisdiction after all. Otherwise the suit must be dismissed without prejudice to its being refiled in state court.”

“The egregious violation of Rule 28(a)(1) by the defendants, who unlike the plaintiff are represented by counsel, is sanctionable, and we shall therefore order the defendants to show cause why they should not be punished.”

Vacated and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Moody, J., Per Curiam.