Earnhart v. Cargill Incorporated et al
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 18 MOTION (First) to Amend/Correct Complaint by Plaintiff Steven Earnhart. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 5/14/13. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
STEVEN EARNHART,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CARGILL, INCORPORATED and
SUNGLO FEEDS,
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-129
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, in
which Plaintiff seeks to add Provimi North America, Inc., as a Defendant and dismiss Cargill,
Incorporated and Sunglo Feeds as Defendants. (Docket # 18.) The proposed amended
complaint, however, alleges that “[u]pon information and belief,” Defendant Provimi North
America, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware
with its principal place of business in Ohio. (Docket # 18-1 at ¶ 2.)
But it is well-settled that “[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’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket # 18) is
1
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff properly reasserting the citizenship of Provimi
North America, Inc., on personal knowledge rather than information and belief.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 14th day of May, 2013.
/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?