Seigel v. FirstFleet Inc

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER; defendant is ORDERED to supplement record forthwith as to the citizenship of the plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 7/2/09. (jcp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION LARRY SEIGEL, Plaintiff, v. FIRSTFLEET, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CAUSE NO. 1:09-CV-181

OPINION AND ORDER This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court, Allen County, Indiana, by Defendant FirstFleet, Inc., based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiff Larry Seigel is a resident of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and that Defendant FirstFleet, Inc., is incorporated in and has its principal place of businees in the state of Tennessee. (Notice of Removal ¶ 4.) Defendants' Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate. This is because the "residency" of each party is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as "citizenship is what matters."1 Guar. Nat'l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning a party's "residency" are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. "It is well-settled that when the parties

For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, each party's citizenship must be articulated as of "the time of the filing of the complaint," rather than the date the claims are alleged to have arisen or some other time material to the lawsuit. Multi-M Int'l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Moreover, "[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge." Yount v. Shashek, No. Civ. 06-753-GPM, 2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing Am.'s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003); Multi-M Int'l, Inc., 142 F.R.D. at 152.

1

allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit." Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see generally Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Court must be advised of each party's citizenship, not residency. As to Plaintiff Seigel, "[f]or natural persons, state citizenship is determined by one's domicile." Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Am.'s Best Inns, Inc., 980 F.2d at 1074 ("In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence."). The Notice of Removal is deficient because it merely alleges that the Plaintiff is a resident of Fort Wayne, Indiana. Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record forthwith as to the citizenship of the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Enter for this 2nd day of July, 2009. /S/ Roger B. Cosbey Roger B. Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge

2