Carr v. Sturm Foods, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER re 2 Complaint filed by Carol Carr. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amendment to the complaint to properly allege subject matter jurisdiction on or before 1/30/2012. ( Action due by 1/30/2012.) Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 1/12/2012. (ktc)

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

CAROL CARR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STURM FOODS, INC. and TREEHOUSE )
FOODS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL NO. 11-1035-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Upon the December 22, 2011 reassignment to the undersigned Judge, the Court reviewed the
complaint in this case to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this Court is obligated to review its own jurisdiction sua sponte. See
Hammes v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 33 F.3d 774, 778 (7th Cir. 1994) (“the court has an
independent duty to satisfy itself that it has subject-matter jurisdiction”); see also 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.”); Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal
Crafters, 781 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986 (“The first thing a federal judge should do when a
complaint is filed is check to see that federal jurisdiction is properly alleged.”). In light of Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, see, e.g., Smith v. American Gen’l Life and Accident Ins. Co.,
337 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2003); Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2000); America’s
Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), this Court

Page 1 of 3

has undertaken a more rigorous initial review of complaints to ensure that jurisdiction has been
properly pleaded. Plaintiff has chosen the federal court for this class action claim, and must
establish federal jurisdiction. See Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 447 (7th
Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff brings this consolidated action on her behalf and on behalf of a putative class
pursuant to the Court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Section 1332(d) applies
to class actions and § 1332(d)(2) gives the district courts “original jurisdiction of any civil action
in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000" and is a class action in
which, applicable here, “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any
defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The class must also contain at least 100 members. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(5)(B); see also In re Safeco Insurance Company of America, 585 F.3d 326, 330 (7th Cir.
2009). Here, Plaintiff properly alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and
claims that there are “tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Class members.” However,
Plaintiff’s allegation of her citizenship is defective. The blanket assertion that ‘Plaintiff’s citizenship
is different than the citizenship of at least one Defendant’ is insufficient.
Plaintiff Carol Carr identifies herself as a “resident of the State of Tennessee” (Doc. 2). An
allegation of “residence” as opposed to “citizenship” is insufficient. See Pollution Control
Industries of America, Inc. v. Van Gundy, 21 F.3d 152, 155 (7th Cir. 1994). “[W]hile a court must
dismiss a case over which it has no jurisdiction when a fatal defect appears, leave to amend defective
allegations of subject matter jurisdiction should be freely given.” Leaf v. Supreme Court of Wis.,
979 F.2d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, Plaintiff is
ORDERED to file an Amendment to the Complaint (as opposed to an Amended Complaint) on

Page 2 of 3

or before January 30, 2012, to adequately establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. If Plaintiff fails to file
an Amendment to the Complaint that properly alleges minimal diversity of the parties in the manner
and time prescribed or if, after reviewing it, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish federal
subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. See Guaranty
Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (remanding case because “it is not
the court’s obligation to lead [parties] through a jurisdictional paint-by-numbers scheme. Litigants
who call on the resources of a federal court must establish that the tribunal has jurisdiction, and
when after multiple opportunities they do not demonstrate that jurisdiction is present, the appropriate
response is clear”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 12, 2012
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3