Melendres v. Officine Facco & C.S.P.A. et al
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS Defendants to FILE, on or before 11/8/2017, a supplemental jurisdictional statement curing the deficiencies noted within this Opinion and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 10/25/2017. (lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JUAN GABRIEL MELENDRES and
ANA GOMEZ NOLASCO,
OFFICINE FACCO & C. S.P.A. and
FACCO USA, INC.,
CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-442-WCL-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. 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).
Defendants Officine Facco & C. S.P.A. and Facco USA, Inc. invoked this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction by removing this litigation from state court to federal court. As the parties seeking
federal jurisdiction, Defendants have the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction
exists. Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009).
The citizenship of Plaintiffs Juan Gabriel Melendres and Ana Gomez Nolasco is determined
by their domiciles. 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., Inc. 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). The Complaint alleges only that Plaintiffs are “residents” of
Indiana, which is insufficient. Defendants must advise the Court of Plaintiffs’ domiciles.
Further, Defendants state that Defendant Officine Facco & C. S.P.A. is an “alien
corporation” with its “principal headquarters” in Italy. A corporation is a citizen of every state and
foreign state in which it has been incorporated and the state or foreign state where it has its principal
place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93
(2010) (holding that the term “principal place of business” refers to the corporation’s “nerve center,”
that is, the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s
activities). Defendants must advise the Court of Officine Facco & C. S.P.A.’s state(s) of
incorporation and place of principal place of business.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendants to FILE, on or before November 8, 2017, a
supplemental jurisdictional statement curing the deficiencies noted above.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2017.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?