Hubert v. General Electric Company

Filing 16

ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint on or before 3/31/2016. All pending motions are hereby MOOT. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/10/2016. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

PATRICIA HUBERT, Individually
and as Special Administrator for the
Estate of ROBERT HUBERT, deceased

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant.

Case No. 16-CV-51-SMY-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of federal subject matter
jurisdiction. See 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”).

In this action, Plaintiff, Patricia Hubert, asserts claims against Defendant General

Electric Company (“GE”) arising from the death of Plaintiff’s Decedent, Robert Hubert.
According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Decedent developed mesothelioma resulting in his death.
(See Doc. 1). Plaintiff asserts that this Court has original jurisdiction over the action based on
the complete diversity of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff, however, has failed
to properly plead diversity jurisdiction.
“For a cause to be within the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, diversity must be
‘complete,’ meaning that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. V. City of Sheboygan Falls, 713 F.2d 1261, 1264 (7th Cir. 1983).
Additionally, an amount in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, must be in
1

controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff, as the proponent of federal subject matter
jurisdiction in this case, bears the burden of proof as to the existence of such jurisdiction. See
Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 540 (7th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff asserts that she resides in South Carolina and is the “duly appointed Personal
Representative for the Estate of Robert Hubert…” (See Doc. 1, p. 1). The statutory grant of
diversity jurisdiction to the federal courts provides, in pertinent part, that “the legal
representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State
as the decedent.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2); see also Clevenger v. Eastman Chem. Co., No. 07cv-148-DRH, 2007 WL 2458474, at * *4-5 (S.D.Ill. Aug. 24, 2007) (holding in an action under
the Illinois Wrongful Death Act that the citizenship of the administrator of a decedent's estate is
that of the administrator's decedent). Thus, where Plaintiff resides is irrelevant to establishing
diversity jurisdiction. 1 Rather, because Plaintiff brings this action in a representative capacity,
her citizenship for diversity purposes is that of her Decedent. Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of
any allegations regarding the citizenship of the Decedent. Plaintiff’s Complaint is also defective
in that it contains no allegations regarding GE’s citizenship. Accordingly, Plaintiff must amend
her Complaint to properly allege the citizenship of both Decedent Robert Hubert and GE.
Finally, the Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction also requires that an amount in
excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, be in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1).

To determine the amount in controversy, the Court looks to the face of the

complaint. Chase v. Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). In
this case, the Complaint does not clearly establish the amount in controversy. At one point,

1

The Court notes that “residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir.
2002). As such, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding residency are insufficient to establish diversity
jurisdiction.

2

Plaintiff alleges that the jurisdictional amount is “in excess of $75,000.00” (See Doc. 1, p. 2).
Plaintiff's ad damnum clause, however, requests an “amount in excess of $50,000.00” (See Doc.
1, p. 3). As such, the Complaint does not fairly and clearly demonstrate that the amount-incontroversy requirement of § 1332 has been met. See, Morales v. Menard, Inc., No. 12-CV9082, 2014 WL 1364996, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2014) (“The party seeking federal jurisdiction
bears the burden to prove that the amount-in-controversy requirement of § 1332 has been met
and that this Court has jurisdiction”).
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended
Complaint addressing the aforementioned defects on or before March 31, 2016. All pending
motions are MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

3