Rickert v. Chase Bank

Filing 6

ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 10/30/2017. 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 twenty one (21) days (11/21/2017) 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 Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 10/30/2017. (RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 30 October, 2017 01:41:32 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
QUINN RICKERT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01483-JES-JEH

v.
CHASE BANK,
Defendant.

Order
The Plaintiff, Quinn Rickert, filed his Complaint on October 27, 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, the Plaintiff fails to allege his own citizenship. Id. 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 Plaintiff’s allegations, which fail to assert
citizenship, are insufficient to establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Additionally, 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). Here, the
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any of the required information about the Defendant.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s complaint is further insufficient 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

1

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

1

(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 twenty one (21) 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 October 30, 2017

s/James E. Shadid
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2