Sparrow et al v. Barron Aviation, LLC et al

Filing 41

OPINION (See Written Opinion): This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement [d/e 39 ] is DISMISSED as Moot. The Plaintiffs Motion for Order [d/e 40 ] is DISMISSED as Moot. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 9/05/2014. (VM, ilcd) Modified on 9/5/2014 (VM, ilcd).

E-FILED

Friday, 05 September, 2014 03:26:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ANGELA SPARROW, Individually
and a Special Administrator of the
Estate of BRANDON SPARROW,
Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
MID-AMERICA SPORT
PARACHUTE CLUB,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 12-3348

OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
Angela Sparrow’s husband, Brandon, was piloting an airplane when
it crashed in Taylorville, Illinois, resulting in Brandon Sparrow’s death.
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Approve Settlement of a
Wrongful Death Action.
This Court, however, in closely examining the record before it, finds
that it does not have jurisdiction.
For the reasons that follow, this case is Dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.
I.
In this action, Angela Sparrow, Individually, and as Special
Administrator for the Estate of Brandon Sparrow, Deceased, filed an
Amended Complaint asserting wrongful death and other claims against a
number of Defendants. She alleged the Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter based on diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).
On August 11, 2014, following the Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily
dismiss, the Court Ordered that Defendants Barron Aviation LLC, John
Michael Barron, Barron Aviation Private Flight Services, LLC and Rapid
Descent, LLC, were dismissed without prejudice.

Mid-America Sport

Parachute Club is the sole remaining Defendant.
The Amended Complaint provides that, on or about August 11, 2012,
the Plaintiff’s Decedent, Brandon Sparrow, was a pilot operating a Hawker
Beechcraft Corporation airplane, model number G18s airplane, registration
number N697Q. He piloted the aircraft during a flight originating from

2

Taylorville Municipal Airport, within the City of Taylorville, County of
Christian, State of Illinois.
The aircraft was leased to the Plaintiff’s Decedent by Defendant MidAmerica Sport Parachute Club, an entity that was in the business of leasing,
operating, inspecting, and maintaining aircrafts. The Plaintiff alleges that
on or about August 11, 2012, “the aircraft was caused to impact terrain” in
Taylorville, Illinois, due to the condition of the aircraft.
The Plaintiff alleges that Mid-America Sport Parachute Club was
negligent in several respects: (1) failing to ensure that the aircraft operated
properly; (2) failing to ensure that the aircraft was properly maintained; (3)
failing to properly inspect the aircraft; and/or (4) it was otherwise negligent.
The Plaintiff further alleges that due to one or more of these negligent
acts and/or omissions, the Plaintiff’s Decedent sustained injuries that
resulted in his death. As a result the Decedent’s surviving wife, Angela
Sparrow, has incurred substantial pecuniary loss, including the loss of
society, companionship, services, and support, and expenses for funeral and
burial.

3

The Plaintiff brings this action under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act,
740 ILCS 180/1 and 2.
II.
Upon reviewing the Amended Complaint and other filings--including
a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction–filed by the
now-dismissed Defendants, the Court questioned whether it had
jurisdiction over the subject matter. In an Order entered on August 12,
2014, the Court observed it had been alleged in the Amended Complaint
that Defendant Mid-America Sport Parachute Club is an Illinois
Corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. The Court
further directed the Plaintiff to file a Status Report identifying the
citizenship of the Plaintiff. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a Status
Report, stating that Plaintiff would file a Petition to Settle by August 25,
2014, and would address the citizenship of the parties therein.
The federal diversity statute treats the legal representative of a
decedent’s estate as a citizen of the same state as the decedent. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(2); see also Gustafson v. zumBunnen, 546 F.3d 398, 400 (7th

4

Cir. 2008). In the Petition to Settle, the Plaintiff states, “Angela Sparrow
is the wife of Brandon Sparrow and Special Administrator of the Estate of
Brandon Sparrow. Angela Sparrow is an Illinois resident and Brandon
Sparrow was an Illinois resident at the time of his death.” See Doc. No. 39,
at 1. Although “[a]n allegation of residence is not sufficient to establish
citizenship, which requires domicile,” see Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen
Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 867 (7th Cir. 2012), in the absence of any
allegation to the contrary, the Court will assume the Plaintiff’s State of
citizenship is the same as the Plaintiff’s State of residency.
In the Petition to Settle, the Plaintiff states, “The Court has
previously been apprised of the issue concerning the residency of the
Plaintiff and Defendant Mid-America Sport Parachute Club.” In support
of that statement, the Plaintiff cites the Amended Complaint which
identified the Defendant as an Illinois corporation.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are citizens of the same
state. Ergo, because the parties are not citizens of different states, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The

5

Plaintiff has not identified any other potential basis of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Court cannot simply look the other way, as it appears

the Plaintiff is requesting. “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental
limitation on the power of a federal court to act.” Del Vecchio v. Conseco,
Inc., 230 F.3d 974, 980 (7th Cir. 2000). Once it appears that subject
matter jurisdiction is lacking, the case must be dismissed for want of subject
matter jurisdiction. See id.
A federal court has a continuing duty to monitor its jurisdiction and
thus has an “obligation to raise and correct jurisdictional matters sua
sponte.” United States v. Tribal Development Corp., 49 F.3d 1208, 1216
(7th Cir. 1995). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
III.
The Court cannot approve a settlement if it is without jurisdiction to
hear the case. Because it is apparent that the Court lacks jurisdiction over
the subject matter, this case will be dismissed.

6

Ergo, this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement [d/e 39] is DISMISSED as
Moot.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Order [d/e 40] is DISMISSED as Moot.
ENTER: September 5, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge

7