Souran v. Creative Wholesale Meats Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 4/19/2017. The Court may grant leave to amend defective allegations of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653. See also, Leaf v. Supreme Court of State of Wis., 979 F.2d 5 89, 595 (7th Cir. 1992) ("leave to amend defective allegations of subject matter jurisdiction should be freely given") (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint not later than fourte en (14) days (5/4/2017) from the date of entry of this Order. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff shall properly allege the basis for the Court's jurisdiction. See full written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 04/19/2017. (RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 19 April, 2017 08:45:08 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
THOMAS C. SOURAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01156-JES-JEH

CREATIVE WHOLESALE MEATS,
INC.; BARRY SCHWARTZ,
STEPHEN LAITMAN,
Defendants.
Order

The Plaintiff, Thomas C. Souran, filed a Complaint on April 17, 2017,
including Defendants Creative Wholesale Meats, Inc., Barry Schwartz, and
Stephen Laitman. (D. 1) 1 The Plaintiff’s Complaint does not sufficiently allege a
basis for subject matter jurisdiction with this Court.
The Court may sua sponte raise the issue of federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Tylka v. Gerber Products Co., 211 F.3d 445, 447 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted). The Court presumes the Plaintiff intends to allege jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship. This requires that the citizenship of all plaintiffs be diverse
from the citizenship of all defendants, and the amount in controversy be in excess
of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Parties asserting diversity jurisdiction based on parties hailing from different
states must allege the citizenship of each party, not the residence. See Held v. Held,
137 F.3d 998 (7th Cir.1998); Pollution Control Indus. of Am., Inc. v. Van Gundy, 21 F.3d
152, 155 (7th Cir.1994). The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly warned that an allegation
1

Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”

1

of residency is insufficient to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Tylka
v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445, 448 (7th Cir.2000); see also Page v. Wright, 116 F2d
449, 451 (7th Cir. 1940) (“[i]n federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence”).

Lastly, a complaint based on diversity jurisdiction must allege the state of
incorporation and principal place of business for each of the named corporations,
and those allegations must be based on the state of things at the time the action
was brought. 28 USC § 1332(c)(1); Grupo Dataflux v Atlas Global Group, LP, 541 US
567, 570-71 (2004).
The Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege the citizenship of any of the parties
or the state of incorporation and principal place of business for the named
corporation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is not sufficient to invoke

diversity jurisdiction.
The Court may grant leave to amend defective allegations of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653. See also, Leaf v. Supreme Court of State of
Wis., 979 F.2d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 1992) (“leave to amend defective allegations of
subject matter jurisdiction should be freely given”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint
not later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order. In the
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff shall properly allege the basis for the Court’s
jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Entered on April 19, 2017.

s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2