Mid-Century Insurance Company v. Pizza By Marchelloni et al

Filing 2

ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 5/16/2017. 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 fourteen (14) days (5/31/2017) 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.(RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 16 May, 2017 10:50:35 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01214-JBM-JEH

v.
PIZZA BY MARCHELLONI;
ESTATE of JOSE PADILLA; and
ESTATE OF LYNSE STOKES,
deceased, by SHANA KRIDNER,
Defendants.
Order

The Plaintiff, Mid-Century Insurance Company, filed a Complaint on May
15, 2017, including Defendants Pizza By Marchelloni, Estate of Jose Padilla, and
Estate of Lynse Stokes, deceased, by Shana Krinder. (D. 1). 1 The Plaintiff’s
Complaint asserts diversity of citizenship as a basis for this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. Id. at pg. 2. The allegations of the Complaint 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).

Asserting jurisdiction on the basis of “information and belief” is

insufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction. America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of
Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (“to the best of my knowledge and
belief” is insufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction); Page v. Wright, 116 F.2d 449,

1

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

1

451 (7th Cir. 1940) (expressing serious doubts as to whether the record could be
sustained in the face of a direct jurisdictional attack where diversity jurisdiction
was asserted, in part, based upon information and belief). The Plaintiff asserts
some of the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction “[o]n information and belief[.]” (D. 1
at pp. 1-2). 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 May 16, 2017.

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

2