Global Archery Products, Inc. v. Firgaira
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before 2/2/2016, by filing an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of Defendant and the amount in controversy between the parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 1/19/2016. (lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
GLOBAL ARCHERY PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRIS FIRGAIRA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:16-cv-00019-JVB-SLC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Global Archery Products, Inc., filed a complaint against Defendant Chris
Firgaira on January 18, 2016, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). The complaint recites that Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation with its
principal place of business in Indiana, and that “upon information and belief,” Defendant is an
individual “residing” in Australia. (DE 1 ¶¶ 2, 3).
Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations with respect to Defendant are inadequate.
“Allegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information
and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057 n.1 (S.D.
Ill. 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.
1992)); see Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114,
at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004).
Furthermore, 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.”). Therefore, Plaintiff
must advise the Court of the domicile of Defendant.
Additionally, the complaint does not contain any language regarding the amount in
controversy. The Court has a duty to ascertain whether the amount in controversy meets the
jurisdictional amount, and, in determining whether the threshold is met, “the Court must evaluate
‘the controversy described in the plaintiff’s complaint and the record as a whole, as of the time
the case was filed.’” Saylor v. Boyd, No. 11-cv-1072-DRH-SCW, 2012 WL 482389, at *1 (S.D.
Ill. Feb. 14, 2012) (quoting Uhl v. Thoroughbred Tech. & Telecomms., Inc., 309 F.3d 978, 983
(7th Cir. 2002)).
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before February 2,
2016, by filing an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of Defendant and
the amount in controversy between the parties.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 19th day of January 2016.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins
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?