Curtis v. Stein Steel Mill Services, Inc. et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 26 Second MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Marshall Curtis. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/26/2016. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARSHALL CURTIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEIN STEEL MILL SERVICES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-00139-JPG-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Remand (Doc. 26).
The Defendant has not filed a response and the time for filing has not expired. However, the
Court does not require a response.
District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and is between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). The “proponent of federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof.” Meridian Sec. Ins.
Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 540 (7th Cir. 2006)(citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936)).
The Plaintiff’s motion states that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (attached as exhibit to his motion) names defendants Medford and Beasley
who are residents of Madison County.

(Doc. 26). As such, the plaintiff claims that diversity is

destroyed as the Plaintiff, “is an individual who has at all relevant times lived in Madison
County, Illinois.”

Page 1 of 2

There are several problems with the Plaintiff’s motion. First, defendants Medford and
Beasley were dismissed without prejudice. Second, Plaintiff was denied leave to amend his
complaint. See, Memorandum and Order of May 11, 2016. Finally, even if the amended
complaint had been filed, 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.
The Court has determined that it has jurisdiction and the time for amendment as a matter
of right has passed. Plaintiff may again seek leave to amend his complaint and he is strongly
advised to review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and this Court’s Memorandum and
Order (Doc. 25) of May 11, 2016.
Based on the above, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Remand (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 5/26/2016
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2