Langan v. Rasmussen et al

Filing 9

ORDER re First Amended Complaint. See Written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 7/24/2015. (KZ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 24 July, 2015 01:58:05 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
DANIEL M. LANGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01285-JBM-JEH

CLIFFORD RASMUSSEN and
KOTTKE TRUCKING, INC.,
Defendants.
Order
On July 21, 2015, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 7) explaining that the
allegations of the Plaintiff’s original Complaint did not sufficiently support the
assertion of diversity of citizenship as the basis of the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint that

adequately alleged the factual basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff

accordingly filed his First Amended Complaint at Law (Doc. 8) attempting to correct
the insufficient allegations of diversity jurisdiction as identified by the Court. The
insufficient allegations previously identified have been corrected.
However, the First Amended Complaint now alleges that the Plaintiff is
“permanently residing in the Village of Dunlap, County of Peoria, and State of
Illinois, and he is a Citizen of the United States of America.” The First Amended
Complaint also alleges that the Defendant Rasmussen is “residing at . . . Buffalo
Lake, MN, and he is a Citizen of the United States of America.” While the First
Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Defendant Rasmussen are citizens
of the United States of America, the First Amended Complaint does not allege the
states of citizenship for those individuals. The citizenship of an individual is based

1

upon domicile, not on residence. America’s Best Inns, Inc v Best Inns of Abilene, LP,
980 F2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir 1992).
Also, the Plaintiff includes Defendant Rasmussen’s entire address. Local Rule
5.11(A) states that “litigants must modify or partially redact certain personal data
identifiers appearing in case initiating documents, pleadings, affidavits, or other
papers.” Local Rule 5.11(A) suggests modification to addresses to include only City
and State.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is directed to file a second amended complaint that
adequately alleges the factual basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and that complies
with Local Rule 5.11(A). The second amended complaint shall be filed within 14
days of this date.

It is so ordered.
Entered on July 24, 2015.

s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2