Imel et al v. Prudential Insurance Company of America The

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America The. Defendant ORDERED to file by 4/2/2015 an Amended Notice of Removal that properly alleges the citizenship of Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 3/19/15. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ESTATE OF DAVID L. IMEL, and
SHARON IMEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-69

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by Defendant The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, alleging that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. (Docket # 1.) In the Notice of Removal, Defendant, a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business in New Jersey, recites: “Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that they
reside in Wells County, Indiana. Plaintiffs are, therefore, deemed to be citizens of the State of
Indiana.” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 6, 7 (citation omitted).)
But Defendant’s jurisdictional allegations with respect to Plaintiffs are inadequate. And
as the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of
demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop’n Save
Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997).
As to Plaintiff Sharon Imel, residency is meaningless for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction; an individual’s citizenship is determined by his or her domicile. Dakuras v.
Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d
669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[R]esidence 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.”); 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). Therefore, Defendant must advise the Court of the domicile of Plaintiff Sharon
Imel, which demonstrates citizenship.
With respect to Plaintiff Estate of David L. Imel, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), “the legal
representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State
as the decedent.” Gustafson v. zumBrunnen, 546 F.3d 398, 400-01 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that
the federal diversity statute treats the legal representative of a decedent’s estate as a citizen of the
same state as the decedent); accord Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2009).
Therefore, Defendant must recite the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death, and in
turn, the citizenship of the Estate.
Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED to file on or before April 2, 2015, an amended notice
of removal that properly alleges the citizenship of Plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 19th day of March 2015.
s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

2