Rosas et al v. Midwest Generation LLC
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 10/18/2011:For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Midwest Generations motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [No. 11-cv-3520, 14; No. 11-cv-3524, 13.] Cases 11-cv-3520 and 11-cv-3524 are both dismissed without prejudice. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Robert M. Dow, Jr.
11 C 3520
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
Rosas, et al. vs. Midwest Generation, LLC
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Midwest Generation’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. [No. 11-cv-3520, 14; No. 11-cv-3524, 13.] Cases 11-cv-3520 and 11-cv-3524 are both
dismissed without prejudice.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
On May 25, 2011, two separate groups of Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Defendant Midwest
Generation, LLC (“Midwest Generation”) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs
allege that Midwest Generation’s operation, maintenance, and control of two of its Illinois coal-fired
electrical generation facilities has unreasonably interfered with their property rights. On October 6, 2011, the
Court granted Midwest Generation’s motion to reassign case number 11-cv-3524 to this Court as a related
case. [See No. 11-cv-3520, 27.]
On August 19, 2011, Midwest Generation moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaints in both cases for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Midwest Generation claims that diversity of citizenship does not exist here
because Midwest Generation, like Plaintiffs, is an Illinois citizen.
When a party moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), challenging the factual
basis for jurisdiction, “the movant may use affidavits and other material to support the motion.” United
Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 2003). In such a case, the Court may look
beyond the pleadings and “weigh the evidence to determine whether jurisdiction has been established.” Id.
As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, and must establish jurisdiction
by a preponderance of evidence. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2006).
In their complaints, Plaintiffs rely solely on diversity jurisdiction as the basis for federal jurisdiction. For
jurisdiction to be founded on diversity of citizenship, there must be complete diversity – i.e., no plaintiff can
be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. See Muscarello v. Ogle County Bd. of Comm’rs, 610 F.3d
416, 424 (7th Cir. 2010). Here, the parties agree that “all Plaintiffs named and unnamed” are citizens of
Illinois.[FN 1] The parties disagree, however, about the citizenship of Midwest Generation. In their
complaints, Plaintiffs assert that Midwest Generation is “a corporate entity of the State of Delaware” and that
11C3520 Rosas, et al. vs. Midwest Generation, LLC
Page 1 of 3
its “primary business address” is in Illinois. Confronted with Midwest Generation’s motions to dismiss,
however, Plaintiffs now claim that Midwest Generation is a citizen of Delaware and California.
[FN 1] Plaintiffs improperly pleaded residence, not citizenship of the Plaintiffs, which is
enough for the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaints. See Guar. Nat’l Title Co., Inc. v.
J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (“When the parties allege residence but not
citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.”). Nevertheless, because Plaintiffs’ civil cover
sheets list Plaintiffs as citizens of Illinois and because the parties agree that Plaintiffs are all
citizens of Illinois, the Court will proceed with its analysis of Defendant’s citizenship.
Midwest Generation first contends that the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaints because “Plaintiffs’
failure to plead California citizenship is fatal to that theory.” [11-cv-3520, 26 at 2.] While it is true that
“[j]urisdiction may not be sustained on a theory that the plaintiff has not advanced,” Merrell Dow Pharm.,
Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 809 n.6 (1986), “the rule in this circuit has been that the court’s discretion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the plaintiff could have pleaded the existence of
jurisdiction and when in fact such jurisdiction exists, should be exercised sparingly.” Muscarello, 610 F.3d at
425 (quotation omitted). In light of this rule, the Court will assess the citizenship of Midwest Generation to
determine in fact whether it is a California citizen for diversity purposes.
To determine the citizenship of Midwest Generation, a limited liability company, the Court looks to the
citizenship of each of its members. Wise v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, 450 F.3d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 2006). The sole
member of Midwest Generation is Edison Midwest Holding Co. (“Midwest Holdings”), a Delaware
corporation. (See Claybaugh Decl., Ex. 1 at 4, 25.) Thus, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the
citizenship of Midwest Generation is the citizenship of Midwest Holdings. See, e.g., Bishop v. Bayer Corp.,
No. 09-2100, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30241, at *8 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2011). Under § 1332(c)(1) of title 28,
United States Code, a corporation like Midwest Holdings is a citizen of “any State by which it has been
incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business * * *.” See also Wachovia Bank v.
Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306 (2006). Accordingly, Midwest Holdings is a citizen of Delaware, where it is
incorporated, and wherever it has its principal place of business.
In the Seventh Circuit, a corporation’s principal place of business is the location of its “nerve center,” “or,
more concretely, where its executive headquarters are located.” Ill. Bell Tel. Co., Inc. v. Global NAPs Ill.,
Inc., 551 F.3d 587, 590 (7th Cir. 2008). In applying the “nerve center” test, the Court considers the following
factors: “the place where corporate decisions are made, where the corporation is funded, where its general
counsel, directors, officers and shareholders are located, where the primary bank account exists, and the place
of its principle office and corporate headquarters.” Chicago Dist. Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund v.
Caremark RX, Inc., No. 04 C 5868, 2005 WL 1950668, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2005).
Midwest Holdings is a true holding company that has no employees and conducts no operations. (Claybaugh
Decl. ¶ 4.) Instead, it delegates management of Midwest Generation to Midwest Generation itself through
Midwest Generation’s board of directors and officers. (Id.) Midwest Generation’s corporate headquarters
and principal executive offices are in Illinois. (Id. ¶ 6; id. Ex. 1 at 2, 4.) Its executives, including its
president, various vice presidents, and corporate counsel, work in its offices in Bolingbrook and Chicago,
Illinois. (Id. ¶ 7.) From Illinois, Midwest Generation’s executives “purchas[e] fuel and other inputs * * *,
schedul[e] maintenance, manag[e] environmental compliance, mak[e] employment and other human resource
decisions, procur[e] * * * goods and services, and manag[e] construction and technical services activities.”
(Id. ¶ 8.) Further, Midwest Generation’s primary bank account is located in Illinois. (Id. ¶ 9.) Thus, as the
Page 2 of 3
record makes clear, Midwest Generation’s, and therefore Midwest Holdings,’ “nerve center,” and principal
place of business, is located in Illinois.
Despite this evidence, Plaintiffs contend that Midwest Holdings’ principal place of business is California.
For support, Plaintiffs point to 1) the fact that Midwest Generation is registered in Illinois as a foreign
corporation with its principal office in California [see 11-cv-3520, 24, Ex. 1]; and 2) the fact that Midwest
Holdings is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Midwest Generation EME, LLC, which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Edison Mission Energy, which is, in turn, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Edison
International. (Claybaugh Decl., Ex. 1 at 4.) According to Plaintiffs, because Edison International is a
California citizen, Midwest Holdings (and Midwest Generation) is a California citizen.
These facts, however, do not make Midwest Holdings a citizen of California for diversity purposes. First, as
noted above, to determine a corporation’s principal place of business, the Court looks to the location of its
executive headquarters, not to the place identified on a Secretary of State’s website as a company’s “Principal
Office.” Indeed, as Midwest Generation points out, the address listed on the Illinois Secretary of State’s
website is the address of Edison Mission Energy, a parent company of Midwest Holdings, which coordinates
official corporate filings for its subsidiaries. (Id. ¶ 5.) Further, the information on the Illinois Secretary of
State’s website is contradicted by Midwest Generation’s Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K
from 2010, which reflects that Midwest Generation’s corporate headquarters and principal executive offices
are located in Illinois. (Id. ¶ 6; id., Ex. 1 at 2, 4.)
Second, the principal place of business of Midwest Holding’s parent companies has no bearing on the Court’s
determination of its citizenship here. Indeed, “subsidiaries may have their own principal place of business
separate and apart from the parent corporation when they are independently operated and controlled.”
Parkside Med. Servs., Inc. v. Lincoln West Hosp., Inc., No. 89 C 2233, 1990 WL 71276, at *1-2 (N.D. Ill.
Apr. 27, 1990) (concluding that the principal place of business of a subsidiary was in Illinois, even though it
was wholly owned by a Georgia corporation); Chicago Dist. Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund, 2005 WL
1950668, at *2 (stating that a subsidiary corporation that is incorporated as a separate entity from its parent
corporation has its own principal place of business unless it is not really a separate entity). Thus, even if one
or more of Midwest Holdings’ parent companies are California citizens, because it is independently operated
and controlled by executives located in Illinois, and because Plaintiffs have not alleged that it is merely the
alter ego of one of its parent corporations, it is an Illinois citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Chicago Dist. Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund, 2005 WL 1950668, at *3 (concluding that a
subsidiary corporation did not take on the principal place of business of its parent corporation where the
plaintiff failed to establish the facts required to prove that the subsidiary was an alter ego).
After reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties, the Court concludes that Midwest Holdings – and,
therefore, Midwest Generation – is a citizen of both Delaware and Illinois for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs and Midwest Generation are all citizens of Illinois, Plaintiffs have not met
their burden of proving complete diversity by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court grants
Midwest Generation’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. [No. 11-cv-3520, 14; No. 11-cv-3524, 13.]
Cases 11-cv-3520 and 11-cv-3524 are both dismissed without prejudice.
Page 3 of 3
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?