Barn II, Inc. an Illinois Corporation, d/b/a Conklin Barn II Dinner Theatre v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 7

ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 5/02/2017. 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 Defendant file an Amended Notice of Removal not later than fourteen (14) days (5/17/2017) from the date of entry of this Order. In the Amended Notice of Removal, the Defendant shall properly allege the basis for the Court's jurisdiction. See full written Order.(RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 02 May, 2017 12:58:57 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
BARN II, INC., d/b/a CONKLIN
BARN II DINNER THEATRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEST BEND MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01184-MMM-JEH

Order
The Plaintiff, Barn II, Inc., filed a Complaint, initiating this case in the Circuit
Court of Woodford County, Illinois. (D. 1-1) 1 The Defendant, West Bend Mutual
Insurance Company, filed a Notice of Removal to this Court on April 28, 2017. (D.
1). The Defendant’s Notice asserts diversity of citizenship as a basis of this Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at pg. 4-5. The allegations of the Notice are not
sufficient to support that assertion.
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).
Here, the Defendant alleges it “is a Wisconsin domiciled insurance company with
its principal place of business located… [in] Wisconsin.” Id. at pg. 5.
A complaint based on diversity jurisdiction must allege the state of
incorporation and principal place of business for each of the named corporations,

1

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

1

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 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 Defendant file an Amended Notice
of Removal not later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order.
In the Amended Notice of Removal, the Defendant shall properly allege the basis
for the Court’s jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Entered on May 2, 2017.

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

2