Jeffrey Golin v. Neptune Management Corporation
704 F. App'x 591
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Golin sues James Golin and Neptune Management Corp. over who may authorize an autopsy for Milton Golin; Neil seeks declaratory relief and TRO; Neptune asserts it is not a proper party and will defer to court order; Milton’s remains are at Neptune for cremation; Milton’s power of attorney dispute between brothers preceded Milton’s death; district court held complete diversity lacking given Neptune’s incorporation and non-diverse plaintiff, and dismissed; on appeal, court concludes Neptune has no stake and the real issue is the amount-in-controversy, which is not met; court affirms dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neptune/SCI defeats complete diversity | Jeffrey claims complete diversity exists by substituting SCI for Neptune | Neptune/SCI not properly joined; no controversy against them | Diversity inadequate; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether veil-piercing/parent liability affects diversity | Piercing Neptune's veil could reveal SCI liability | Veil-piercing governs liability, not citizenship | Veil-piercing not a basis for diversity determination |
| Whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met | Automatized value exceeds $75,000 via potential future damages | No monetary relief sought; only injunctive/declaratory relief; not satisfied | Amount not met; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether Illinois Act on disposition of remains affects proceedings | Act supports timing, but not necessarily jurisdiction | Act shields funeral homes from liability without court order | Act does not cure federal jurisdiction; dismissal proper |
| Whether remand or realignment would cure jurisdiction | Neptune as nominal party could be realigned to create completeness | Neptune has no stake; realignment unnecessary | Remand/realignment not warranted; jurisdiction improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (amount in controversy in equitable action measured by relief sought)
- Macken ex rel. Macken v. Jensen, 333 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2003) (injunctive relief—measurability of value for jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Skinner, 101 U.S. 577 (1879) (nominal party should not affect jurisdiction)
- Matchett v. Wold, 818 F.2d 574 (7th Cir. 1987) (nominal party does not affect diversity)
- Int’l Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Chromas Techs. Canada, Inc., 356 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2004) (veil-piercing is a liability remedy, not a basis for diversity)
- Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2008) (veil-piercing disfavored under Illinois law)
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (injunctive relief must not be speculative for amount in controversy)