Grall v. Grall et al
Filing
5
ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on January 29, 2025. The 2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and the 4 motion to transfer is DENIED. Plaintiff Tara Grall must file an amended complaint that identifies each party's citizenship by February 28, 2025. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court RESERVES RULING on the 3 motion to e-file. (AV)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 29 January, 2025 09:02:08 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
TARA GRALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM GRALL, TAMMY GRAHAM,
G-TEAM, PC dba SHOALS FAMILY
THERAPY, and RENEE LYNN KROLL
GRALL,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:24-cv-04209-SLD
ORDER
The matter comes before the Court for review of Plaintiff Tara Grall’s Complaint, ECF
No. 1, and for ruling on her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2;
motion for permission to e-file, ECF No. 3; and Motion to Transfer Alabama State Case to
Federal Court, ECF No. 4. For the reasons that follow, the Court RESERVES RULING on the
motion for permission to e-file, the motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED, the motion to transfer
is DENIED, and Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint adequately alleging
subject matter jurisdiction.
I.
IFP Motion
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) allows a court to authorize commencement and prosecution of a
suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit stating her assets and that
she is unable to pay such fees. See Holly v. Wexford Health Servs., Inc., 339 F. App’x 633, 635–
36 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury which
demonstrates that she is unable to pay the costs of the proceeding. IFP Pet. 1–5. The motion to
proceed IFP, therefore, is GRANTED.
1
II.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Plaintiff files suit against Defendants William Grall, Tammy Graham, G-Team, PC dba
Shoals Family Therapy, and Renee Lynn Kroll Grall asserting breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. Compl. 2, 7–8. 1 She alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over her
case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, id. at 6, but the Complaint does not contain sufficient allegations
for the Court to determine whether exercising diversity jurisdiction is appropriate.
District courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). For a court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity
between the parties. Pain Ctr. of Se. Ind. LLC v. Origin Healthcare Sols. LLC, 893 F.3d 454,
458 (7th Cir. 2018). This means “that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any
defendant.” McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks
omitted). To determine whether complete diversity exists, the citizenship of each party must be
identified. Cf. Dalton v. Teva N. Am., 891 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[P]roving the
citizenship of each party is [the plaintiff’s] burden.”).
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding diversity jurisdiction are deficient in two respects. First,
she does not identify the citizenship of each Defendant. Plaintiff must identify the citizenship of
Defendants Tammy Graham and Renee Lynn Kroll Grall. Citizenship for an individual is based
on domicile, or “the place one intends to remain.” Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th
Cir. 2002).
Second, the Court cannot determine G-Team, PC’s citizenship from the Complaint’s
allegations. A corporation is a citizen of each state in which it is incorporated and the state
1
The Complaint is not consistently paginated so the Court uses the page numbers generated by CM/ECF.
2
“where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff alleges that GTeam, PC is incorporated in Alabama and that it has principal places of business in Alabama,
Illinois, Mississippi, and Georgia. Compl. 6. But a corporation can have only one principal
place of business. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92–93 (2010) (holding that a
corporation’s principal place of business is “where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and
coordinate the corporation’s activities” and that it “is a single place”). Plaintiff must allege only
one principal place of business for G-Team, PC. Typically, the principal place of business is
“where the corporation maintains its headquarters,” as long as that is “the actual center of
direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the ‘nerve center,’” for the corporation. Id. at 93.
Plaintiff has until February 28, 2025 to file an amended complaint that identifies each
party’s citizenship.
III.
Motion to E-File
The Court RESERVES RULING on the motion to become an e-filer. If Plaintiff files an
amended complaint that provides a basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction and
that survives merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), then the Court will consider
granting Plaintiff permission to become an e-filer.
IV.
Motion to Transfer
Plaintiff asks that the Court “transfer the pending state court action styled William G.
Grall v. Tara Grall, filed in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Alabama, Case No. 41-cv2024-900070.00 . . . to this federal case” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and § 1446. Mot.
Transfer 1.
The Court is prohibited from granting such relief. A defendant can remove a civil action
brought in a state court to federal court if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the
3
matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). But the defendant must remove such an action “to the district court
of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.” Id. The suit Plaintiff has identified is pending in Alabama, not Illinois. Plaintiff
would have had to remove the case to the federal district court embracing Lauderdale County,
Alabama. The motion is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2,
is GRANTED, and the motion to transfer, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. Plaintiff Tara Grall must file
an amended complaint that identifies each party’s citizenship by February 28, 2025. Failure to
do so will result in dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court
RESERVES RULING on the motion to e-file, ECF No. 3.
Entered this 29th day of January, 2025.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?