Coffelt v. Hodge et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: jurisdictional defect. Amended complaint due by 3/11/2015. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/26/2015. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LEE ANN COFFELT,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES HODGE, individually, and as agent,
Servant, and/or emoloyee of Envirnmental
Concepts and Services, Inc.
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS AND
SERVICES, INC., a Tennessee corporation,

)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 15-168 JPG/PMF
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)

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. 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. 1) filed
by plaintiff Lee Ann Coffelt:


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 citizenship of plaintiff Lee Ann Coffelt as
a citizen of the United States but not of Illinois. Complaint also alleges
residence but not citizenship of defendant James Hodge.



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, Environmental Concepts and Services, Inc. but
not principal place of business.

The Court hereby ORDERS that Lee Ann Coffelt, shall have up to and including ,
March 11, 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 Lee Ann
Coffelt 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: February 26, 2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE