RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Company, et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/27/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RBS CITIZENS, N.A. d/b/a
CHARTER ONE, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST
COMPANY, etc., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 8332

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has received the Complaint in this mortgage
foreclosure action, predicated (as always) on the diversity of
citizenship branch of federal subject matter jurisdiction, and it
has noted a couple of inexplicable deficiencies in the latter
respect.

Although both Complaint ¶1 and its n.1 correctly

identify each facet of the corporate citizenship of plaintiff RBS
Citizens, N.A. under 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1),1 the Complaint has
managed to get it wrong as to each of the other three parties
litigant:
1.

Complaint ¶2 alleges irrelevancies (at least in the

jurisdictional sense) as to Chicago Title Land Trust
Company, so that paragraph needs to be reworked.
2.

As to defendant Nercy Jafari, the Complaint ¶3

speaks of him or her only as “an individual whose address is

1

All further references to Title 28’s provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.”

32 Baybrook Lane, Oakbrook IL 60523.”

That reference to an

individual’s residence rather than his or her state of
citizenship also does not do the job--indeed our Court of
Appeals has reconfirmed in Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F.3d
858, 861 n.3 (7th Cir. 2004)(citing earlier caselaw) that
“[w]hen the parties allege residence but not citizenship,
the district court must dismiss the suit.”
3.

Lastly, despite counsel’s already-referred-to

knowledge of the correct allegations as to national banking
associations, Complaint ¶4 has not provided the requisite
jurisdictional information as to defendant JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.
That level of carelessness really justifies the Draconian
mandate reconfirmed in Adams v. Catrambone.

This Court will heed

that directive by dismissing the Complaint and this action--but
to spare plaintiff’s counsel the need to provide a complete doover if the proper allegations do establish the requisite
diversity, counsel is advised that a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion that cures the existing flaws will be granted on condition
that plaintiff couple the motion with a $400 payment to the Clerk

2

of Court.2

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

November 27, 2013

2

That fine is equivalent to the cost of a second filing
fee, because a new action would have to be brought if the defects
identified here turn out to be curable.
3