Aspen Specialty Insurance Company v. Metro East Title Corporation et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: jurisdictional defect.Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/4/2013. (jdh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-cv-1118 JPG/DGW
v.
METRO EAST TITLE CORPORATION et al,
Defendants.
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 defects in the
jurisdictional allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 2) filed by plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance
Company:
Failure to allege the citizenship of a corporation. A corporation is a citizen of both the
state of its principal place of business and the state of its incorporation. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1). The relevant pleading must affirmatively allege the specific states of
incorporation and principal place of business of a corporate party. Dismissal is
appropriate if a plaintiff fails to make such allegations. Indiana Hi-Rail Corp. v. Decatur
Junction Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 363, 366 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1994). Complaint alleges state of
incorporation of defendant and interested party but not principal place of business.
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 defendants,
Karen Steinke and Marvin Steinke.
The Court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance Company
shall have up to and including November 14, 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[or for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Amendment of the faulty pleading to reflect an adequate
basis for subject matter jurisdiction will satisfy this order. Plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance
Company 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: November 4, 2013
s/J. PHIL GILBERT
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?