Murphy v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER vacating the direction in its Memorandum and Order 9 requiring periodic status reports. Notwithstanding the stay of this case, the Court Orders Defendants to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defect. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/28/11. (bkl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
VALERIE MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-501-JPG-DGW

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ORTHOMCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. Specifically, the
Court VACATES the direction in its Memorandum and Order (Doc. 9) of June 22, 2011,
requiring periodic status reports.
Additionally, the Court notes the following defect in the jurisdictional allegations of the
Notice of Removal (Doc. 2) filed by Defendants:
!

Failure to allege citizenship of corporate member of an
unincorporated association. To determine if complete diversity exists,
the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of a limited
liability company. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market
Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003). The relevant pleading
must affirmatively allege the specific states of citizenship of each member
of the limited liability company, and “the citizenship of unincorporated
associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or
members there may be.” Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chicago Casino, 299
F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). For a corporate member, the pleading must
affirmatively allege the state of its principal place of business and the state
of its incorporation. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (2006). Here, the notice of
removal alleges the state of incorporation of the sole member of
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and
Development, LLC, but it does not allege its principal place of business.

Notwithstanding the stay of this case, the Court ORDERS that Defendants shall have up
to and including July 8, 2011, to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defect.
Failure to amend the faulty pleading may result in remand of this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Amendment of the faulty pleading to reflect an adequate basis for subject matter
jurisdiction will satisfy this order. Defendants are directed to consult Local Rule 15.1 regarding
amended pleadings and need not seek leave of Court to file such amended pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2011

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2