PLASTIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC v. INDIANA GOLF CARTS LLC

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
P LASTIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP , LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INDIANA GOLF C ARTS LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:25-cv-02207-JMS-MG
ORDER
Plaintiff Plastic Development Group, LLC ("PDG") initiated this litigation in October 2025
against Defendant Indiana Golf Carts LLC ("IGC"). Presently pending before the Court is PDG's
Motion for Entry of Default. 	[Filing No. 23.] 	The Court considers PDG's Motion and also
discusses a jurisdictional issue.
I.
MOTION FOR E NTRY OF DEFAULT
PDG filed its initial Complaint in this case on October 27, 2025 and after the Court issued
several Orders regarding jurisdictional issues with PDG's allegations, it filed an Amended
Complaint, [Filing No. 11], on October 29, 2025 and a Second Amended Complaint, [Filing No.
17], on November 1, 2025. On December 4, 2025, PDG filed a Motion for Entry of Default in
which it argues that IGC did not answer or otherwise plead to the Second Amended Complaint
within the deadline for doing so. [Filing No. 23.] The same day, IGC filed a Motion for Extension
of Time to File Answer, [Filing No. 28], an Answer, [Filing No. 27], and an Opposition to Motion
for Default, [Filing No. 29].
On December 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge granted IGC's Motion for Extension of Time
to File Answer, finding that IGC's failure to timely file its Answer was due to "excusable neglect"
Case 1:25-cv-02207-JMS-MG Document 37 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
and stating that IGC's Answer would be accepted as timely. [Filing No. 36 at 1.] Based on the
Magistrate Judge's finding that IGC's failure to timely file its Answer was due to excusable neglect
and that the Answer is accepted as timely, the Court DENIES PDG's Motion for Entry of Default.
[Filing No. 23.]
II.
J URISDICTIONAL I SSUE
A review of IGC's Answer reflects that IGC disagrees with some of PDG's jurisdictional
allegations. Specifically, in its Answer IGC states that it lacks information or knowledge sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of allegations related to PDG's citizenship and denies allegations
relating to the amount in controversy. 	[Filing No. 27 at 1-2.] 	This leaves the Court unable to
determine whether the facts upon which diversity jurisdiction is based are disputed.
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. Wisconsin Housing and Economic
Development Authority, 776 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015) ("the 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").
Accordingly, in order for the Court to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over
this matter, the parties are ORDERED to conduct whatever investigation is necessary and to file
a joint jurisdictional statement by January 30, 2026, properly setting forth each party's citizenship
and whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 	If
Case 1:25-cv-02207-JMS-MG Document 37 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
agreement cannot be reached on the contents of a joint jurisdictional statement, competing
statements must be filed by that date. This is the fourth jurisdiction-related order the Court has
had to issue in this case, and the parties are cautioned that this matter will not move forward until
all jurisdictional issues are resolved.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, PDG's Motion for Entry of Default, [23], is DENIED and the
parties are ORDERED to conduct whatever investigation is necessary and to file a joint
jurisdictional statement by January 30, 2026, properly setting forth each party's citizenship and
whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
Date: 1/9/2026
Case 1:25-cv-02207-JMS-MG Document 37 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>