Simmons v. Pegasus Biologics, Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER: Plaintiff Carl L. Simmons is ordered to file an amended complaint that properly alleges the existence in this case of federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 not later than 4:30 p.m., May 27, 2011. See accompanying Order. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 5/17/2011. (ktc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CARL L. SIMMONS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PEGASUS BIOLOGICS, INC., and )
SYNOVIS ORTHOPEDIC AND )
WOUNDCARE, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL NO. 11-407-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007) (“It is the responsibility of a court to make
an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case.”);
Johnson v. Wattenbarger, 361 F.3d 991, 992 (7th Cir. 2004) (a district court’s “first duty in every
suit” is “to determine the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction”). Plaintiff Carl L. Simmons filed
his complaint on May 13, 2011 alleging that Defendant Pegasus Biologics Inc., and Defendant
Synovis Orthopedic and Woundcare, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Pegasus Biologics Inc.,
designed, manufactured, fabricated, supplied, and sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous
orthadapt bioimplant which, when inserted into Plaintiff during a surgical procedure, caused Plaintiff
over $75,000 in injury. Plaintiff asserts federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity
of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s
complaint, the Court discerns certain flaws in the pleading with respect to federal jurisdiction in
Page 1 of 3

diversity. These defects require Plaintiff to re-plead his complaint
The exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction in diversity requires generally, of course,
that the parties to a case be of diverse state citizenship and that an amount in excess of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, be in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); LM Ins. Corp. v.
Spaulding Enters. Inc., 533 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2008). “For a case to be within the diversity
jurisdiction of the federal courts, diversity must be ‘complete,’ meaning that no plaintiff may be a
citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. City of Sheboygan
Falls, 713 F.2d 1261, 1264 (7th Cir. 1983). “Section 1332 of Title 28 states that a corporation ‘shall
be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it
has its principal place of business.’ The state of incorporation and the principal place of business
must be alleged in the complaint.” McMillian v. Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers, 567 F.3d 839,
845 n.10 (7th Cir. 2009), quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pegasus Biologics, Inc. (“Pegasus”), was incorporated
in California and was “headquartered” in California. Alleging the location of corporate headquarters
is sufficient for the purposes of alleging the “principal place of business.” See Illinois Bell
Telephone Co., Inc. v. Global NAPs Illinois, Inc., 551 F.3d 587, 590 (7th Cir. 2008) (“A company’s
principal place of business is where its ‘nerve center’ is located, or more concretely, where its
executive headquarters are located.”) However, while Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Synovis
Orthopedic and Woundcare, Inc. (“Synovis”) is incorporated in California, Plaintiff fails to allege
Synovis’s principal place of business. As such, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead Synovis’s
citizenship. Complete diversity, and by extension federal subject matter jurisdiction in diversity,
cannot be established when Plaintiff fails to properly allege the citizenship of a named party.

Page 2 of 3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Carl L. Simmons shall file an amended
complaint that corrects the defects in his pleading of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in
diversity. Plaintiff must plead the citizenship of every named defendantSspecifically, Plaintiff must
allege both the state of incorporation and the state of principal place of business of every named
corporate defendant. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be filed not later than May 27, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 17, 2011
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3