Bond Pro Corporation v. Siemens Power Generation , Inc .

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________
No. 05-3077
B OND P RO C ORPORATION ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S IEMENS P OWER G ENERATION , I NC .,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 04 C 0026 C—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.
____________
O N O RDER TO S HOW C AUSE —D ECIDED O CTOBER 19, 2006
____________
Before POSNER , 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

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.

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --