466 F.3d 562 | 7th Cir. | 2006
Before P OSNER , E ASTERBROOK , and W OOD , Circuit Judges . P ER C URIAM . In our opinion deciding this appeal, we
said: Our Circuit Rule 28(a)(1) requires that the jurisdic- tional statement in a diversity suit name the states of which the parties are citizens. In violation of this rule, the jurisdictional statement in the plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s jurisdictional statement is complete and correct.
2 No. 05-3077 No. 05-3077, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23183, at *2 (7th Cir. Sept. 12, 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 apolo- gized for the violation but suggested no excuse, let alone justification. Violations of the rule are distressingly com- mon despite frequent warnings, see Hart v. Terminex Int’l , 336 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2003); Myerson 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 appel- lant, 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 sanc- tion in the hope of deterring further violations.
It is therefore O RDERED that counsel for the plain- tiff—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. No. 05-3077 3 A true Copy:
Teste: _____________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
USCA-02-C-0072—10-19-06
