JABBARI v. OMIDVAR et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ALI JABBARI, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 1:26-cv-00206-TWP-TAB
)
PARVIZ OMIDVAR, 	)
OLIVER OMIDVAR, 	)
LURIE, ZEPEDA, SCHMALZ, HOGAN &
MARTIN LLP,
)
)
STEVEN P. HOGAN ESQ., 	)
M. DAMIEN HOLCOMB ESQ., 	)
RACHEL KARTIN ESQ., 	)
BODMAN PLC, 	)
STEPHEN P. DUNN ESQ., 	)
JOHN DOES 1-50, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, ENTRY ON JURISDICTION, AND
DIRECTING AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
On January 7, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Ali Jabbari ("Jabbari") initiated this action in Hamilton
Circuit Court. On January 30, 2026, Defendants Parviz Omidvar and Oliver Omidvar (together,
the "Removing Defendants") removed the action to this federal Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction (Dkt. 1). Jabbari subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative
pleading (Dkt. 5), and an Emergency Motion to Remand (Dkt. 8); and the Removing Defendants
filed an Amended Notice of Removal (Dkt. 6) and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Dkt. 12).
To effectively manage the docket and ensure the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction,
the Court SETS a BRIEFING SCHEDULE on the pending Motions to Remand and to Dismiss,
ORDERS Removing Defendants to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement, and DIRECTS
counsel for Defendants to file an amended Notice of Appearance that conforms to the Local Rules.
Case 1:26-cv-00206-TWP-TAB Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. 	BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PENDING MOTIONS
Defendants are ORDERED to file a response, if any, to Jabbari's Motion to Remand (Dkt.
8) by no later than February 25, 2026. Jabbari may file a reply in support of his Motion to Remand
within seven (7) days of Defendants' response.
Jabbari is ORDERED to file a response, if any, to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
12) by no later than February 25, 2026. Defendants may file a reply in support of their Motion to
Dismiss within seven (7) days of Jabbari's response.
This Order addresses only Jabbari's Motion to Remand and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
because no other motions have been filed in this federal court.1
II. 	ENTRY ON JURISDICTION
The Amended Notice of Removal ("Amended Notice") (Dkt. 6) fails to allege all the facts
necessary to determine whether this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The
Amended Notice alleges that this Court has jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship.
However, the Amended Notice fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Defendant Lurie,
Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin LLP ("Hogan & Martin LLP") and Defendant Bodman PLC.
Citizenship is the operative consideration for jurisdictional purposes. See Meyerson v. Harrah's
East Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002).
"For diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of
its members." Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). "Consequently, an
LLC's jurisdictional statement must identify the citizenship of each of its members as of the date
the complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those members have members, the citizenship
1 Pursuant to this Court's Local Rule 81-2(e)(2), "[i]f any motion remains pending in state court at the time of removal,
and if the movant wishes the District Court to rule on the motion, the party that initially filed the motion must refile
the motion in the District Court case, and attach any responses thereto, within seven (7) days of the filing party’s
appearance."
Case 1:26-cv-00206-TWP-TAB Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of those members as well." Id. The same is true of partnerships. "A limited partnership is a citizen
of every state of which any partner, general or limited, is a citizen." Am.'s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best
Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Amended Notice alleges that Hogan & Martin LLP "is a California corporation, with
its principal place of business located at 1875 Century Pk E #2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, United
States." (Dkt. 1 ¶ 8). The Amended Notice does not mention Bodman PLC, even though Bodman
PLC was added as a defendant before the Amended Notice was filed.
The Amended Notice does not adequately allege the citizenship of Hogan & Martin LLP
and Bodman PLC to allow the Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. As its name
implies, Hogan & Martin LLP is a limited liability partnership, yet the Amended Notice fails to
identify the partners of Hogan & Martin LLP and their state(s) of citizenship. The Amended Notice
likewise fails to allege the members of Bodman PLC, which appears to be a professional limited
liability company. See Meyerson, 299 F.3d at 617 ("[T]he citizenship of unincorporated
associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be.
Failure to go through all the layers can result in dismissal for want of jurisdiction." (citations
omitted)); West v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 951 F.3d 827, 830 (7th Cir. 2020) ("We've held
repeatedly that there's no such thing as a [state name here] partnership or LLC, that only the
partners' or members' citizenships matter, and that their identities and citizenships must be
revealed. We do not blithely accept assurances along the lines of 'no one on our side is a citizen of
the opposing litigant's state.'" (citation modified)).
In addition, neither the original Notice of Removal nor Amended Notice states whether
Defendants Hogan & Martin LLP, Steven Hogan, M. Damien Holcomb, Rachel Kartin, or Stephen
Dunn have been properly joined and served, and consent to or join in removal. The Removing
Case 1:26-cv-00206-TWP-TAB Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Defendants are required to explain the absence of those Defendants from the Amended Notice. N.
Ill. Gas Co. v. Airco Indus. Gases, a Div. of Airco, Inc., 676 F.2d 270, 273 (7th Cir. 1982) ("[A]
petition filed by less than all of the named defendants is considered defective if it fails to contain
an explanation for the absence of co-defendants.").
The Court is not being hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze
subject-matter jurisdiction, Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012),
and a federal court always has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora
Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court must know the details of the underlying
jurisdictional allegations because parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court simply by
stipulating that it exists. See Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wis. Hous. & Econ. Dev. Auth., 776
F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[T]he parties' united front is irrelevant since the parties cannot
confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement . . . and federal courts are obligated to inquire into
the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte.").
As the party asking this Court to invoke its jurisdiction, the Removing Defendants must
properly allege the citizenship of each of the parties to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See
Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2009); Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc.,
985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the Removing Defendants are ORDERED to file a
Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This
statement should specifically identify the partners and members of Hogan & Martin LLP and
Bodman PLC, respectively, and their state(s) of citizenship; and state whether the other Defendants
properly joined and served at the time of removal consented to or joined in removal. This
jurisdictional statement is due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry.
Case 1:26-cv-00206-TWP-TAB Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
III. 	AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Finally, the second Notice of Appearance filed by Attorney Stephen Dunn states that he
"appear[s] in this action as counsel for all Defendants." (Dkt. 9); Attorney Dunn is ORDERED to
file an amended Notice of Appearance specifically naming the parties or defendants he represents
within seven (7) days from the date of this Entry. See S.D. Ind. L.R. 83-7(a)(1) (requiring attorneys
to file an appearance for each party they represent).
SO ORDERED.
Date: 	2/11/2026
Distribution:
ALI JABBARI
13421 Spring Farms Dr.
Carmel, IN 46032
Stephen Paul Dunn
Bodman Plc
sdunn@bodmanlaw.com
Case 1:26-cv-00206-TWP-TAB Document 14 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>