ILNews

Case vacated over jurisdictional questions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded a case to an Indiana District Court to determine whether the plaintiffs in a suit have citizenship in Indiana or Arizona.

In Charles A. Craig and Barbara J. Craig v. Ontario Corp., Nos. 06-4409, 08-1013, Ontario Corp. challenged Charles and Barbara Craig's claims they were Arizona citizens so federal court is the appropriate venue for their lawsuit against an Indiana company.

Charles worked for Ontario and offered to sell his shares of the company back when he retired. Instead of receiving cash, he received three promissory notes from Ontario. Later, the Craigs sued in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division after Ontario sent a notice of default on the notes.

The District Court entered judgment for the Craigs on their suit in No. 06-4409 and denied Ontario's motion for relief from judgment. Ontario filed a second appeal after the District Court declined to hear the company's motion for relief from judgment while the original case was on appeal to the 7th Circuit. Ontario discovered evidence the Craigs may actually be citizens of Indiana, not Arizona, so the federal court wouldn't have jurisdiction to hear their suit. The District Court held it had no jurisdiction to rule on the motion, conduct a hearing, or to review new filings while the original case was on appeal.

The 7th Circuit vacated the original ruling by the District Court because it was mistaken to believe it lost authority to explore the facts relating to subject-matter jurisdiction, wrote Judge Diane Wood.

The appellate court also reversed the District Court's order denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion by Ontario in case No. 08-1013 and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on subject matter jurisdiction. Ontario collected evidence showing the Craigs purchased an Indiana property right before filing their complaint and sold another property in Indiana after they filed the complaint. Barbara voted in Indiana after the suit was filed, which is allowed only if one is a resident of the precinct for at least 30 days. These and other facts called into question the Craigs' citizenship and they must prove otherwise in order to retain their suit in federal court, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT