Cincinnati Insurance Company The v. Kuhn et al
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended Complaint on or before 7/13/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/29/2012. (kjm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
TODD KUHN and DIKE DAME,
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 1:12-CV-221
OPINION AND ORDER
This case was filed in this Court on June 29, 2012, based on diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) The Complaint alleges that “[u]pon information
and belief, Defendant Dike Dame (“Dame”) was at all relevant times and still is a citizen of the
State of Oregon with his primary residence in Portland, Oregon.” (Compl. ¶ 3.)
The Complaint, however, is inadequate because “[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. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152
(N.D. Ill. 1992). Consequently, Plaintiff must amend its Complaint to allege the citizenship of
Defendant Dike Dame on personal knowledge rather than on information and belief.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended
1
Complaint on or before July 13, 2012, properly alleging on personal knowledge the citizenship
of Defendant Dike Dame.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 29th day of June, 2012.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?