Moore et al v. R.G. Brinkmann Company et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that plaintiff correction jurisdictional defects re Amended Complaint 29 or the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/2/2011. (dka, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOBBY G. and DYNNA MOORE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
R.G. BRINKMANN COMPANY d/b/a
Brinkmann Constructors,
NEGWER MATERIALS, INC., and
DURA-STILT SALES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, and
IAM of PUERTO RICO, INC.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 11-cv-208-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own initiative for purposes of case
management. Specifically, the Court questions whether it has jurisdiction over this matter.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They may exercise jurisdiction only
over matters authorized by the Constitution and by statute. Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power,
111 F.3d 1312, 1316 (7th Cir. 1997). Moreover, federal courts must police the boundaries of
their own jurisdiction. Even absent an objection by a party challenging jurisdiction, they are
“obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal
jurisdiction.” Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445, 448-49 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mt.
Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977)). As such, this Court conducts a
rigorous initial review of complaints to ensure that jurisdiction has been properly pled.
In their Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 29), Plaintiffs Bobby G. and Dynna Moore
have not properly pled diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Federal courts
have jurisdiction over a civil action between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)

(2006). “For the purposes of [§ 1332(c)] . . . , a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any
State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of
business[.]” Se. Guar. Trust Co., Ltd. v. Rodman & Renshaw, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 1001, 10051006 (N.D. Ill. 1973) (emphasis added). Here, the Moores have not alleged either the state of
incorporation or the principal places of business of Defendants American Home Products, Inc.,
AHP Subsidiary Holding Corporation, or Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The Court also notes
Defendant Dura-Stilt Sales Limited Partnership is a limited partnership. “[L]imited partnerships
are citizens of every jurisdiction of which any partner is a citizen.” Ind. Gas Co. V. Home Ins.
Co., 141 F.3d 314, 316 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96
(1990)). The Moores have not identified the members of Dura-Stilt Sales Limited Partnership,
let alone their citizenship.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Moores to correct these and any other
jurisdictional defects by June 10, 2011. See Tylka, 211 F.3d at 448 (“[I]t is not the court’s
obligation to lead counsel through a jurisdictional paint-by-numbers scheme.”). Should they fail
to do so, the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2011
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2