Stegmeyer v. Peet

Filing 9

ORDER ON THRESHOLD JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW OF REMOVED CASE: Having reviewed 1 the Notice of Removal filed by Frederick Peet, and as fully explained in the attached Order, the Court DIRECTS Peet to file an Amended Removal Notice by February 5, 2016, allowing the Court to confirm that subject matter jurisdiction lies under the federal diversity statute. (Action due by 2/5/2016.)Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/27/16. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES H. STEGMEYER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FREDERICK PEET,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-0096-MJR-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ON THRESHOLD JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Frederick Peet, a podiatrist, hired Charles Stegmeyer, a lawyer, to represent him
(Peet) in three lawsuits in Missouri state court from 2006 to 2010. In May 2013, Peet
sued Stegmeyer for legal malpractice in St. Louis County, Missouri, seeking over
$725,000 in damages (Case No. 14SL-CC-00693). In December 2015, Stegmeyer sued
Peet in St. Clair County, Illinois, asserting that – in the course of the Missouri litigation –
Peet slandered and libeled Stegmeyer, thereby damaging Stegmeyer’s reputation and
costing him money (Case No. 15-L-697).
Served with Stegmeyer’s Illinois defamation complaint on December 28, 2015,
Peet removed the action to this United States District Court on January 26, 2016,
invoking subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. 1332.
Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship among the parties plus an
amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

1|P age

As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, Peet bears the burden of
demonstrating that all requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied here. Smart
v. Local 702 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th
Cir. 2009). See also Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th
Cir. 2006); American Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Florida v. Evans, 319 F.3d 907, 909 (7th
Cir. 2003). Peet has not shouldered that burden in the current removal notice.
The amount in controversy appears to suffice. Stegmeyer’s state court suit seeks
over $50,000 plus punitive damages and other relief.

Additionally, an affidavit

submitted with the removal notice attests that Stegmeyer valued his defamation claim
at more than $2,000,000 during mediation of the Missouri malpractice case. But the
removal notice (apparently echoing the Illinois complaint) pleads the residence of the
parties, not their citizenship. 1

Allegations of "residence" do not suffice to invoke

federal diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Myrick v. WellPoint, Inc., 764 F.3d 662, 664 (7th
Cir. 2014) (For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, citizenship differs from residence.
Citizenship means domicile -- the person's long-term plan for a state of habitation -rather than just their current residence), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1508 (2015). Residency
does not establish citizenship, and the Seventh Circuit has reminded district courts of
the "importance of scrupulous adherence to the limitations on the subject-matter
jurisdiction of the federal courts." Meyerson v. Harrah's East Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617
(7th Cir. 2002).

At one point (Doc. 1, p. 2), the notice says this action is “between citizens of
different states,” but it does not identify either party’s citizenship, only their residence.
1

2|P age

District courts should freely grant leave to amend defective allegations of subject
matter jurisdiction or allow the parties to brief jurisdictional issues, rather than sua
sponte dismissing cases for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Leaf v. Supreme Court of
Wisconsin, 979 F.2d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 941 (1993); Frey v.
E.P.A., 270 F.3d 1129, 1131-32 (7th Cir. 2001)(“unless the defect is clearly incurable a
district court should ... allow the parties to argue the jurisdictional issue....”).
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Defendant Peet to file an Amended Removal
Notice clearly delineating the basis for federal diversity jurisdiction, including the
parties’ citizenship, by February 5, 2016. If the undersigned confirms that subject matter
jurisdiction lies, the case will be tracked and assigned a firm trial date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED January 27, 2016.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3|P age