Eldracher v. Honeywell, Inc.

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: jurisdictional defect. Amended complaint due by 1/13/15. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/30/2014. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID ELDRACHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HONEYWELL, INC., doing business as
Honeywell Perfomance Materials and Technologies,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 14-1414 JPG/DGW
)
)
)

)
)
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. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559
U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (noting courts’ “independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it”). The Court has noted the
following defects in the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint (Doc. 2) filed
by plaintiff :


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.



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 but not principal place of business.

The Court hereby ORDERS that David Eldracher, shall have up to and including ,
January 13, 2015 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defects. 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 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: December 30, 2014
s/J. Phil Gilbert
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE