Vihodet v. Gheorghe
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, re: jurisdictional defect. Amended Complaint due by June 13, 2016. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/3/2016. (jdh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ARCADIE VIHODET,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-cv-00465-JPG-PMF
BAICAN GHEORGHE, et al.,
Defendants.
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 plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1):
1.
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.
2.
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).
The Court hereby ORDERS plaintiff Arcadie Vihodet to SHOW CAUSE why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff Arcadie Vihodet
shall have up to and including June 13, 2016, 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 Arcadie Vihodet 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: 5/3/2016
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
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?