HENSELMEIER v. BILLY COOK HARNESS & SADDLE MANUFACTURING, INC., 1:21-cv-00794

Plaintiff Larry Henselmeier alleges an oral 1993 agreement with Billy Cook Harness & Saddle Mfg., Inc. to act as a sales representative for 10% commissions and worked from 1993 to July 2020.
Henselmeier filed suit March 31, 2021, claiming unpaid commissions, unjust enrichment, and an account stated in excess of $75,000.
Defendant is a corporation with its principal place of business in Sulphur, Oklahoma; plaintiff’s complaint did not allege the corporation’s state of incorporation.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2), and (6), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is below $75,000 given Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations for unwritten employment claims.
Defendant submitted an affidavit and accounting showing 2019–2020 earned commissions of $66,606.75 and payments of $26,924.86, leaving at most $39,681.89 in damages for the limitations period; plaintiff offered only a conclusory affidavit asserting he is owed over $75,000.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing both insufficient proof of the jurisdictional amount and inadequate pleading of corporate citizenship.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Amount-in-controversy (≥ $75,000)	Henselmeier asserts damages exceed $75,000 (complaint and affidavit).	Accounting and statute-of-limitations limit recoverable commissions to at most ~$39,682.	Plaintiff failed to provide competent proof; jurisdictional amount not met; dismissal.
Pleading of corporate citizenship	Complaint states defendant is a foreign corporation with principal place in Oklahoma.	Complaint omits state of incorporation; pleading insufficient to establish diversity.	Court found citizenship inadequately pleaded; diversity cannot be determined.
Effect of Indiana 2-year statute of limitations	Claims pleaded over 27-year period; plaintiff did not supply limited-period accounting.	Indiana law caps recovery for unwritten employment claims to two years before filing; damages thus limited to post-March 31, 2019.	Court applied the two-year limit and relied on defendant’s accounting to assess amount in controversy.
Need to decide 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) arguments	Not reached.	Sought dismissal on personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.	Not addressed because case dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

McCready v. White, 417 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2002) (jurisdictional challenges must be resolved before merits)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (threshold jurisdictional requirements for diversity jurisdiction)
Bazile v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 983 F.3d 274 (7th Cir. 2020) (courts may weigh evidence outside the pleadings on factual jurisdictional disputes)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (dismissal proper if plaintiff fails to establish facts entitling relief)
Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must support jurisdictional allegations with competent proof)
McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (competent proof required when jurisdictional facts are challenged)
Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 435 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2006) (when complaint includes a number, it controls unless recovery of that amount is legally impossible)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (principle that complaint’s stated amount controls subject to legal impossibility)
Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2006) (corporate citizenship includes state of incorporation and principal place of business)
State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Morderosian, 234 F.3d 1274 (7th Cir. 2000) (conclusory jurisdictional allegations are insufficient)
Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2004) (dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is without prejudice)