Schwaninger v. Hyundai Motor Company et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, re: jurisdiction defect. Amended complaint due 8/21/2015. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/7/2015. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JANET SCHWANINGER, as Administratrix of the
Estate of Elizabeth Schaaf, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign
Corporation,et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 15-858 JPG/PMF
)
)
)
)

)
)
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
subject-matter 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 the
plaintiff:


Failure to allege the citizenship of decedent. A complaint asserting
diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of individual parties. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Where a suit is brought on behalf of the estate of a
decedent, the citizenship of the legal representative of the estate shall be
deemed to be that of the decedent. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2); see Gustafson
v. zumBrunnen, 546 F.3d 398, 400-01 (7th Cir. 2008); Konradi v. United
States, 919 F.2d 1207, 1214 (7th Cir. 1990). Complaint does not allege the
decedent’s citizenship prior to death.



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). Plaintiff has not stated the
principal place of business of each defendant.
The Court hereby ORDERS that the plaintiff, shall have up to and including,
August 21, 2015 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 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: August 7, 2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE