Raqqa, Inc. et al v. Northstar Lottery Group, LLC et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Remand: For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum and order, Plaintiffs' motion to remand is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 3/16/2018. (kll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RAQQA, INC., MICHAEL CAIRO,
JASON VAN LENTE, and JOHN BEAN,
for themselves and on behalf of all other
Illinois citizens similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NORTHSTAR LOTTERY GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-246-MJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in case number 17-L-51 in the Circuit
Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois on behalf of two
classes of Illinois citizens: business entities that served as retailers for Illinois Lottery
instant game tickets and the individuals who purchased instant game tickets. Plaintiffs
allege that Northstar Lottery Group, LLC, as private manager for the Illinois Lottery,
materially misrepresented the odds of winning the games associated with the instant
tickets. Defendant timely removed the action to this Court alleging diversity of
citizenship subject matter jurisdiction. After filing their notice of removal, Defendant
moved to dismiss the class action complaint, arguing, in part, that Plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring their claims. Plaintiffs then moved to remand this action to state court
(Doc. 15), arguing that, because Defendant raised a standing challenge, they fail to meet
the burden imposed on a removing party to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Generally, a defendant may remove a state court action to federal court only
when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Defendant’s notice of removal states that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the
federal diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which confers original jurisdiction on district
courts where there is diversity of citizenship and where the amount in controversy is
satisfied. Here, Plaintiffs do not challenge that this case meets the jurisdictional
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties agree that they are diverse. The named
Plaintiffs are Illinois citizens seeking to bring the action on behalf of a class of Illinois
citizens. Defendant Northstar is a limited liability company whose corporate members
are citizens of Delaware, Rhode Island, and Georgia. Plaintiffs do not challenge that the
amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
With the parties in agreement as to the diversity jurisdiction requirements, the
Court’s remand analysis typically ends. Plaintiffs, however, take issue with the
Defendant removing this action to federal court then challenging Article III standing.
They argue that Defendant, as the removing party, bears the burden of establishing
subject matter jurisdiction, a burden Defendant fails to satisfy by moving to dismiss for
lack of standing. This argument, however, confuses the concepts of justiciability and
subject matter jurisdiction.
Justiciability and subject matter jurisdiction, though related in that both act to
limit the power of federal courts to adjudicate a claim, must be treated as two distinct
issues. See, e.g., Peoples Gas, Light and Coke Co, v. U.S. Postal Service, 658 F.2d 1182,
1188 n.3 (7th Cir. 1981); Rent Stablization Ass’n v. Dinkins, 5 F.3d 591, 594 n.2 (2d. Cir

1993). Standing is the aspect of justiciability that assesses whether a plaintiff has a
personal stake in the outcome of a case. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
Plaintiffs point to nothing in the removal statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 or § 1446, that limits
a litigant’s ability to raise questions of justiciability post-removal. Plaintiffs do not
challenge that this action satisfies the requirements of the federal diversity statute,
which confers subject matter jurisdiction to the Court. The undersigned FINDS that
Defendant’s standing challenge addresses justiciability and not subject matter
jurisdiction, and it does not mandate that this case be remanded to state court.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 16, 2018
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge