Jones v. Goliath Artists Inc. et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM Order: Plaintiff Jones must cure the jurisdictional defects identified here by filing appropriate amendments to his Complaint on or before January 19, 2015, failing which this Court would be constrained to dismiss this action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/8/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

RAYMOND L. JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GOLIATH ARTISTS, INC., SHADY
)
RECORDS, INC., INTERSCOPE
)
RECORDS, INTERSCOPE RECORDS )
AFTERMATH RECORDS under
)
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC.,
)
and MARSHALL MATHERS,
)
)
Defendants. )

Case No. 14 C 10459

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Raymond Jones ("Jones") has filed a self-prepared Complaint against a number of
defendants, asserting under the caption "Jurisdiction and Venue" that he is advancing both claims
under the "Copyright Laws of the United States" and "related state law claims." This
memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of some problematic aspects of that pro se
pleading.
To begin with, Jones' substantive allegations, brought under the headings "First Cause of
Action" and "Second Cause of Action," are both labeled as claiming "Common Law Copyright
Infringement" 1 -- no federal copyright claims are specified in the body of the Complaint. That
being the case, Jones must look to diversity of citizenship rather than federal question
jurisdiction as his ticket of entry to this District Court.

1

This Court expresses no substantive view as to the viability or nonviability of any state
law claim tendered by Jones.

In that respect there is no problem in meeting the statutory amount-in-controversy
requirement, for Paragraph 8 of each "Cause of Action" specifies an ad damnum in excess of $8
million in compensatory and punitive damages. But the Complaint's allegations as to citizenship
are deficient in every respect:
1.

Parties ¶ 1 speaks of Jones' place of business in Chicago, but it

says nothing about his state of citizenship.
2.

Parties ¶¶ 2 through 4 specify the state of incorporation of each of

the three corporate defendants, but those paragraphs then speak only of each
"having an office" or "having an address." That being so, the 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1) essential element of each corporation's "principal place of business" is
nowhere identified.
3.

As with Jones, Parties ¶ 5's reference to individual defendant

Marshall Mathers speaks only of a New York City address, again being silent as
to his state of citizenship.
Under those circumstances such cases as Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F.3d 858, 861 n.3
(7th Cir. 2004) command that "the District Court must dismiss the suit." This Court is loath to
comply with that Draconian mandate where as here, Jones has invested $400 in payment of the
filing fee. Accordingly Jones must cure the jurisdictional defects identified here by filing
appropriate amendments to his Complaint on or before January 19, 2015, failing which this
Court would be constrained to dismiss this action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: January 8, 2015
2