Etienne et al v. Roehl Transport Inc et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER The Court ORDERS Defendants to FILE a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement on or before May 22, 2017, identifying the domicile of Plaintiffs Thama Etienne, Yvel Georges, Milove Pierre, and Estiben Simon and of Defendant Gary Webb as of the dates on which the Complaint and Notice of Removal were filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 5/8/17. (kjp)

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
THAMA ETIENNE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROEHL TRANSPORT INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-196-TLS-PRC
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Notice of Removal [DE 1], filed by Defendants Roehl
Transport, Inc. and Gary Webb on May 4, 2017. In the Notice, Defendants state that Plaintiffs’
Complaint is subject to removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.
The Court must continuously police its subject matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of
Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002). As the parties seeking to invoke federal diversity
jurisdiction, Defendants bear 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).
Anything less can result in remand of a removed case to state court for want of jurisdiction.
Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino P’ship, 312 F.3d 318, 321 (7th Cir. 2002). For cases in
federal court due to removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, “diversity must exist both at the
time of the original filing in state court and at the time of removal.” Altom Transport, Inc. v.
Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 823 F.3d 416, 420 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Thomas v. Gaurdsmark, Inc.,
381 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir. 2004)).
The jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal are deficient. Although the
citizenship of Defendant Roehl Transport, Inc. is properly alleged, there is insufficient information
to determine the citizenship of Plaintiffs Thama Etienne, Yvel Georges, Milove Pierre, and Estiben

Simon and of Defendant Gary Webb.
The citizenship of these parties is determined by their domicile. Heinen v. Northrop
Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). The Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiffs
are “citizens of New York.” The Notice also alleges that Webb was a citizen of Florida at the time
of the accident that gave rise to this lawsuit and is currently a citizen of North Carolina. These
allegations are not allegations of domicile and also provide no information as to the parties’
citizenship as of the time of the filing of the Complaint in state court. Defendants must advise the
Court of the domiciles of these parties as of the time of the state court filing of the Complaint and
as of the date of this case’s removal to federal court.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to FILE a Supplemental Jurisdictional
Statement on or before May 22, 2017, identifying the domicile of Plaintiffs Thama Etienne, Yvel
Georges, Milove Pierre, and Estiben Simon and of Defendant Gary Webb as of the dates on which
the Complaint and Notice of Removal were filed.
SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2017.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2