Hardy v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: jurisdictional defect. ( Amended Pleadings due by 10/31/2013.) Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/17/2013. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES HARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 13-1068 JPG/DGW
)
)
)

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In light of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals admonitions, see Foster v. Hill, 497
F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court has undertaken a rigorous initial review of
pleadings to ensure that jurisdiction has been properly pled. The Court has noted the
following defect in the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint (Doc. 2) filed by
plaintiff James Hardy:
Failure to allege the citizenship of an individual. A complaint asserting diversity
jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of an individual defendant, not merely
residence. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino,
299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir.
1998). Allegations of “residence” are jurisdictionally insufficient. Steigleder v.
McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905). Dismissal is appropriate where parties allege
residence but not citizenship. Held, 137 F.3d at 1000. Complaint alleges residence
but not citizenship of plaintiff, James Hardy.
The Court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff James Hardy shall have up to and
including October 31, 2013 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional
defect. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Failure to amend the faulty pleading may result in dismissal
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. Plaintiff
James Hardy is 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: October 17, 2013
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE