From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bondpro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Oct 19, 2006
466 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2006)

Summary

penalizing failures to comply with jurisdictional-statement requirements

Summary of this case from Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.

Opinion

No. 05-3077.

October 19, 2006.

Peter M. Reinhardt (argued), Menomonie, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David T. Schultz (argued), Maslon, Edelman, Borman Brand, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee.

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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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) ("we have warned litigants about the precise pattern observed here — a patently erroneous jurisdictional statement by the appellant, and a patently erroneous statement by the appellee that the appellant's jurisdictional statement is complete and correct"); 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.


Summaries of

Bondpro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Oct 19, 2006
466 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2006)

penalizing failures to comply with jurisdictional-statement requirements

Summary of this case from Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.

sanctioning lawyers $1000 for inadequate jurisdictional statement

Summary of this case from Bobzien v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.

sanctioning lawyers $1000 for failing to identify citizenship of parties

Summary of this case from FELTON v. TEEL PLASTICS, INC.

imposing sanctions for violation of Seventh Circuit Rule 28

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Lafarge North America, Inc. (N.D.Ind. 10-22-2009)

sanctioning lawyers $1000 for inadequate jurisdictional statement

Summary of this case from State Farm Fire Casualty Co. v. Whirlpool Corp.

sanctioning lawyers $1000 for inadequate jurisdictional statement

Summary of this case from Kreckow v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
Case details for

Bondpro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation

Case Details

Full title:BONDPRO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEMENS POWER GENERATION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Date published: Oct 19, 2006

Citations

466 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2006)

Citing Cases

In re Smith

That may make counsel's absence understandable, but it does not make it "substantially justified." In order…

State Farm Fire Casualty Co. v. Whirlpool Corp.

May Dept, Stores Co. v. Federal Insurance Co., 305 F.3d 597, 598 (7th Cir. 2002). See also Smoot v. Mazda…