HK Metal Recycling Holding LTD et al v. Gilbert et al
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER directing Dfts to file a further amended Notice of Removal on/bf 10/13/2011, properly alleging on the citizenship of Third Party Dft Hughes Chan a/k/a Chan Yu and Ko Yuk Ping. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 9/28/2011. (lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
HK METAL RECYCLING HOLDING LTD; and, )
HKRR, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STEVEN GILBERT; and
)
GLOBAL RECYCLING, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
)
STEVEN GILBERT; and
)
GLOBAL RECYCLING, INC.,
)
)
Counter-claim Plaintiffs/
)
Third Party Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
HK METAL RECYCLING HOLDING LTD,
)
HKRR, LLC, and
)
)
Counter-claim Defendants,
)
)
v.
)
)
HUGHES CHAN A/K/A CHAN YU
)
)
Third Party Defendant.
)
Case No: 1:11-CV-298
)
OPINION AND ORDER
This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by
Defendants/Counter-claim and Third Party Plaintiffs, Steven Gilbert and Global Recycling, Inc.,
based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 3.) As the first
Notice of Removal was jurisdictionally inadequate, this Court ordered Defendants to file an
amended Notice of Removal properly alleging on personal knowledge the membership of
HKRR, LLC, and the citizenship of Third Party Defendant Hughes Chan a/k/a Chan Yu.
(Docket # 8.) While the Amended Notice of Removal now properly alleges the membership of
HKMR, LLC, it alleges that Third Party Defendant Chan, the sole member of HKMR, “resides”
in Hong Kong and that Ko Yuk Ping, the sole director of HKMR, is “an individual residing” in
Hong Kong. (Am. Notice of Removal ¶¶ 6-7.)
Defendants’ jurisdictional allegations, however, inadequately set forth the citizenship of
Hughes Chan and Ko Yuk Ping. 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 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
both Third Party Defendant Chan and Ko Yuk Ping, “[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. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (“In
federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.”).
1
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).
2
Therefore, the Defendants are ORDERED to file a further amended Notice of Removal
on or before October 13, 2011, properly alleging on the citizenship of Third Party Defendant
Hughes Chan a/k/a Chan Yu and Ko Yuk Ping.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 28th day of September, 2011.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?