Dye v. Tillman et al
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER: Dfts to supplement the record by filing an Amended Notice of Removal on/bf 6/28/2013, properly alleging the citizenship of Decedent Gladys M Dye and Dft Eirik Tillman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/14/2013. (lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
RICHARD CHARLES DYE, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of
GLADYS M. DYE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
EIRIK TILLMAN and
QUEST COMMUNICATIONS,1
Defendants.
CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-194
OPINION AND ORDER
This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendants based
on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) Citing the Complaint,
the Notice of Removal states that “Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent, GLADYS M. DYE, was a
resident of the State of Indiana” and that “Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant EIRIK
TILLMAN is a resident of the State of Ohio.” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 4-5.)
Defendants’ Notice of Removal, however, is insufficient to establish the citizenship of
Gladys Dye and Eirik Tillman. This is because the “residency” of each party is meaningless for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as “citizenship is what matters.” 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
1
In their Notice of Removal, Defendants note that Qwest Communications International, Inc., is improperly
named as Quest Communications in the Complaint. (Notice of Removal ¶ 1.)
1
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 Gladys Dye’s and Eirik Tillman’s citizenship,
rather than their residency, which “[f]or natural persons . . . is determined by one’s domicile.”
Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,
671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence may or may not demonstrate citizenship,
which depends on domicile—that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the
long run.”); 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.”).
Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended
Notice of Removal on or before June 28, 2013, properly alleging the citizenship of Decedent
Gladys M. Dye and Defendant Eirik Tillman.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 14th day of June, 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?