Huff v. Ethicon, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, re: jurisdictional defect. Amended complaint due 4/21/2016. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/7/2016. (jdh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
) Case No.: 16-368 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
plaintiff Matthew Huff:
Failure to allege the citizenship of an individual. 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. Complaint alleges residence but not citizenship of plaintiff
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). Complaint alleges state of
incorporation of defendant, Ethicon, Inc. but not principal place of business.
The Court hereby ORDERS that Matthew Huff shall have up to and including
April 21, 2016 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defects. 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 Matthew Huff
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: April 7, 2016
s/J. Phil Gilbert
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?