National Cooperative Bank, N.A. f/k/a NCB, FSB v. Matthews

Filing 6

ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 7/18/2017. 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 (8/2/2017) 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, 18 July, 2017 01:19:19 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK,
N.A. f/k/a NCB, FSB,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01330-JES-JEH

v.
GARY MATTHEWS,
Defendant.

Order

The Plaintiff, National Cooperative Bank, filed its Complaint on July 17,
2017. (D. 1). 1 The Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts diversity of citizenship as the basis
for the Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at pg. 1. The allegations of the Complaint are
insufficient 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).
First, “[g]eneral partnerships, limited partnerships, joint stock companies,
and unincorporated membership associations all are treated as citizens of every
state of which any partner or member is a citizen.” Indiana Gas Co., Inc. v. Home
Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 314, 317 (7th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

The Plaintiff’s

complaint does not identify the members of its association or allege the citizenship
of those members. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is not sufficient to invoke
diversity jurisdiction.

1

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

1

Additionally, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant “has an address” in
Illinois. 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
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”).

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).

The

Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges the
factual basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. 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 this Court’s jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Entered on July 18, 2017
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2