American Sovereign, Inc. et al v. Private Medina College for Medical Sciences et al

Filing 21

ORDER: Pursuant to the deficient jurisdictional allegation of one of Plaintiffs' own citizenship, the deficient jurisdictional allegations outlined in this Court's February 7, 2012 Order (Doc. 13), and pursuant to the Court's May 18, 2012 Order (Doc. 20), this case is DISMISSED for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 7/23/2012. (mab)

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

AMERICAN SOVEREIGN, INC. et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PRIVATE MEDINA COLLEGE
MEDICAL SCIENCES et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
FOR )
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 12-00038 - GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
This case 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”).
On January 12, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit alleging breach of contract and fraud
(Doc. 2). Plaintiffs claimed this Court had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to “42 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(2)” (Doc. 2, p. 1). Although Plaintiffs used Title “42" in the complaint, Plaintiffs then
quoted the language from 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) (Doc. 2). Plaintiffs cited to the language of 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) that is commonly referred to as alienage jurisdiction (Doc. 2). The Court
construes Plaintiffs’ complaint to assert jurisdiction under a theory of alienage jurisdiction.

Page 1 of 3

Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations, however, are woefully deficient. This matter must be
dismissed for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff American Sovereign Incorporated
states it is a “Montana Corporation”. (Doc. 2). However, “[s]ection 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). As of today,
Plaintiffs have failed to allege the principal place of business of American Sovereign Incorporated.
On February 7, 2012, the Court outlined additional problems the Court perceived with
Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations (See Doc. 13). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit a brief
on the jurisdictional deficiencies (Doc. 13). In response to the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs submitted
a document that was titled “Motion For Order, Re Brief Concerning Jurisdiction” (Doc. 18). The
Court construed Plaintiffs’ “Motion” as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (See Doc.
19). The Court ordered the amended complaint due on or before May 15, 2012 (Doc. 19).
Unfortunately, the Court was informed that Plaintiffs’ counsel passed away on May 5, 2012
(See Doc. 18). On May 18, 2012, the Court gave Plaintiffs sixty days from the date of the Order to
obtain new counsel and further prosecute this lawsuit (Doc. 18). The Court warned that a failure
to obtain counsel within the allotted time would result in a dismissal of this case for want of federal
subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 18).
More than sixty days have come and passed since the Court’s May 18, 2012 Order. Plaintiffs
have not obtained new counsel to prosecute this lawsuit. Accordingly, pursuant to the deficient
jurisdictional allegation of one of Plaintiffs’ own citizenship, the deficient jurisdictional allegations

Page 2 of 3

outlined in this Court’s February 7, 2012 Order (Doc. 13), and pursuant to the Court’s May 18, 2012
Order (Doc. 20), this case is DISMISSED for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 23, 2012
/s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3