Harris v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 6

SHOW CAUSE ORDER. See Order for details. Action due by 8/9/16. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/26/16. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DOUGLAS HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-0823-DRH

MONSANTO COMPANY
and JOHN DOES 1-50,
Defendants.
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court for case management. On July 20,
2016, Douglas Harris filed suit against Monsanto Company and John Does 1-50
based on the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 1). On July 21, 2016, Chief
District Judge Michael J. Reagan recused from this matter and it was reassigned to
the undersigned (Doc. 5).
A review of the complaint indicates that diversity citizenship is lacking. As
to the citizenships of John Does 1-50, the complaint states: “Upon best information
and belief, Defendants JOHN DOES 1-50 are subsidiaries, partners, or other
entities that were involved in the design, development, manufacture, testing,
1

packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of
the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The identities
of JOHN DOES 1-50 are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff will move the
Court to specifically name JOHN DOES 1-50 as their identities becomes known to
Plaintiff through discovery.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 11). These allegations are insufficient to
establish diversity jurisdiction. "… [B]ecause the existence of diversity jurisdiction
cannot be determined without knowledge of every defendant's place of citizenship,
“John Doe” defendants are not permitted in federal diversity suits.
omitted.]

[citations

To this as to most legal generalizations there are exceptions. The

obvious one, inapplicable to this case however, is if the “John Does” are merely
nominal parties, irrelevant to diversity jurisdiction. Moore v. General Motors
Pension Plans, supra, 91 F.3d at 850; United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Charter
Financial Group, Inc., supra, 851 F.2d at 958 n. 3. And naming a John Doe
defendant will not defeat the named defendants' right to remove a diversity case if
their citizenship is diverse from that of the plaintiffs. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). That
exception is also inapplicable to this case, which was not removed. Salzstein v.
Bekins Van Lines, Inc., 747 F.Supp. 1281, 1283 (N.D.Ill.1990).… So none of the
exceptions applies here, and the plaintiff doesn't even have the excuse (not
justification) of not knowing the defendant's name. It should not be difficult to
determine an insurance company's state or states of citizenship."
Goerdt v. Tribune Entm't Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997).

2

Howell by

Thus, the Court ORDERS plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before August 9,
2016 why the Court should not dismiss John Does 1-50 for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 26th day of July, 2016.

Digitally signed
by Judge David
R. Herndon
Date: 2016.07.26
09:17:30 -05'00'
United States District Judge

3