Clayton Creason v. Elanco US Inc.
Original Case: 1:22-cv-00853
| Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals | |
| Case #: | 0:25-cv-01552 |
| Type | civil / private |
| Nature of Suit | 790 Labor - Other Labor Litigation |
| Case Filed: | Apr 02, 2025 |
| Last checked: Thursday Apr 03, 2025 6:34 AM CDT |
|
Defendant - Appellee
ELANCO US INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
CLAYTON CREASON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 04/03/2025 3:16 AM CDT |
| Wednesday, April 02, 2025 | ||
| 1 | 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee paid. Docketing statement filed. Transcript information sheet due by 04/16/2025. Appellant's brief due on or before 05/12/2025 for Clayton Creason. [1] [7444176] 25-1552 (AD) [Entered: 04/02/2025 11:50 AM] | |
Att: 1
24 pgs
Civil Case
|
||
|
Att: 2
2 pgs
Attorney / Party Notice of Docketing
|
||
|
Att: 3
1 pgs
Notice to District Court
|
||
| 2 | 2
1
pgs
ORDER: Circuit Rule 3(c)(1), referencing Circuit Rule 28(a), requires an appellant to file a docketing statement which provides information concerning the district court?s jurisdiction. If jurisdiction depends on diversity, the statement must identify the amount in controversy and establish the required diversity between the parties. In the present case, appellant states that the district court concluded it had jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), though he suggests he disputes that conclusion. Appellant?s Circuit Rule 3(c) docketing statement, however, fails to provide any information about the amount in controversy, the parties? citizenship, or any of the other prerequisites to jurisdiction under that Act?either as the district court found those matters or as appellant asserts them. In particular, appellant must identify diverse states of citizenship of at least one plaintiff proposed class member and at least one defendant. Notably, appellant references a motion to remand based on the local-controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction, but that exception does not eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction and instead directs a district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction, see Myrick v. WellPoint, Inc., 764 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2014), so any reliance on that exception would not satisfy the requirements of Circuit Rule 3(c)(1), even assuming appellant maintains that the exception applies. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that appellant shall file an amended docketing statement that provides a complete statement of jurisdiction that includes the omitted information. The statement is due on or before April 9, 2025. JXK [2] [7444260] 25-1552 (JMB) [Entered: 04/02/2025 02:18 PM]
|
|