Weant et al v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER re 4 Complaint filed by Glen Weant, Nina Weant. Plaintiffs are Ordered to file an Amendment to the Complaint on or before 11/24/2011 alleging complete diversity of all parties (see attached Order). Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 11/14/2011. (ktc)

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

GLEN WEANT and NINA WEANT,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS
AMERICA,
INC.,
TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
LIMITED, and ELI LILLY AND
COMPANY,
Defendants.

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

CIVIL NO. 11-788-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”). Plaintiffs bring this personal injury and
loss of consortium action against Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides federal
subject matter jurisdiction where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between diverse citizens. For the purposes of establishing § 1332 jurisdiction, ‘diversity’
means ‘complete diversity’–“none of the parties on either side of the litigation may be a citizen of the
state of which a party on the other side is a citizen.” Howell v. Tribune Entm’t Co., 106 F.3d 215, 217

Page 1 of 2

(7th Cir. 1997); see also Market St. Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. Frey, 941 F.2d 588, 589 (7th Cir. 1991)
(under “the requirement of complete diversity of citizenship...no party on one side of the case may be
a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side.”).
Here, Mr. Weant and his wife, Mrs. Weant (in her loss of consortium claim), seek damages in
excess of $75,00 exclusive of interests and costs. The Weants properly allege citizenship of all named
Defendants, and Defendants’ citizenships are diverse to Mr. Weant’s. However, Plaintiffs fail to allege
Mrs. Weant’s citizenship. Though Mrs. Weant’s claim is derivative of her husband’s personal injury
claim, she is a named Plaintiff, and as such must have citizenship diverse from all Defendants to
preserve federal subject matter jurisdiction. Though the complaint alleges that Mrs. Weant “lives and
cohabitates” with Mr Weant, a citizen of Nevada, federal subject matter jurisdiction “must be a matter
of certainty and not of probabilities (however high).” Murphy v. Schering Corporation, 878 F. Supp.
124, 125-26 (N.D. Ill. 1995); see also Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007)
(“[A]n appellant’s naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship is never sufficient.”); Medical
Assurance Company, Inc., v. Hellman, 610 F.3d 371, 376 (7th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an amendment to the complaint (Doc. 4) alleging
Mrs. Weant’s citizenship. Plaintiffs shall file the amendment to fully establish complete diversity under
28 U.S.C. § 1332 on or before November 24, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 14, 2011
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2