State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. et al v. General Motors LLC

Filing 9

JURISDICTIONAL ORDER: Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a second amended complaint, on or before July 7, 2015, that properly establishes diversity jurisdiction. See Order for specifics. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/23/15. (klh2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
CO. and
STATE FARM MUTUAL
ATUOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-626-NJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiffs State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. filed this case on June 6, 2015, based on diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 1). Shortly thereafter, the Court entered an order informing
Plaintiffs that the jurisdictional allegations regarding the citizenship of the parties were
insufficient and directing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint (Doc. 7). Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint (Doc. 8); however, the jurisdictional allegations remain defective.
To properly allege a corporation’s citizenship for the purposes of diversity
jurisdiction, “[t]he state of incorporation and the principal place of business must be
alleged.” McMillan v. Sheraton Chi. Hotel & Towers, 567 F.3d 839, 845 n.10 (7th Cir. 2009);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs state that they
are both entities of State Farm Insurance, a corporation with its principal
place of business located at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois
61710. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is organized
Page 1 of 3

under the laws of the State of Illinois. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company and is also organized under the law of the state of
Illinois (Doc. 8).
The amended complaint is an improvement over the original in that it alleges
Plaintiffs were organized under the laws of Illinois. But the amended complaint still says
nothing about the location of each Plaintiffs’ respective principal place of business.
Instead, the amended complaint simply provides the principal place of business for
“State Farm Insurance.” As mentioned in the previous Order—and made crystal clear
now—“State Farm Insurance” is not a party to this lawsuit, and therefore, its principal
place of business is wholly irrelevant unless Plaintiffs also provide information enabling
the Court to determine that they are the alter egos of “State Farm Insurance,” which they
did not do (Doc. 7). Accordingly, Plaintiffs must file a second amended complaint that
properly alleges both the state of incorporation and the principal place of business for
each Plaintiff.
The Court is not pointing out Plaintiffs’ errors “merely for the sake of hyper
technical jurisdictional purity.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 837
(1989). It is because the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly warned district courts to ensure
that subject matter jurisdiction is properly pleaded. See, e.g., 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) (lamenting that litigants and judges all too
often “disregard their first duty in every suit: to determine the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction”); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691,

Page 2 of 3

692 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Once again litigants’ insouciance toward the requirements of federal
jurisdiction has caused a waste of time and money.”); Wisconsin Knife Works v. National
Metal Crafters, 781 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986) (“The first thing a federal judge should
do when a complaint is filed is check to see that federal jurisdiction is properly alleged.”)
As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs “[bear] the burden of
demonstrating that the requirements for diversity are met.” Smart v. Local 702 Intern.
Broth. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009). Their jurisdictional allegations,
standing alone, must establish that diversity jurisdiction exists. The Court will not read
between the lines or make assumptions regarding the citizenship of any party.
Consequently, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a second amended complaint, on
or before July 7, 2015, that properly establishes diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 23, 2015
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3