Pickens v. New York Life Insurance Company, et al
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS the Defendants to FILE, on or before 6/25/2019, a supplemental jurisdictional statement identifying the domicile of the Plaintiff on 4/25/2017. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/12/2019. (bas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
MARY PICKENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-190-TLS
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and AARP CORPORATION
a/k/a AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED PERSONS,
Defendants.
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).
The Notice of Removal alleges that the Court’s original subject matter jurisdiction is
based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3–7.) Diversity
jurisdiction exists when the parties to an action on each side are citizens of different states, with
no defendant a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As the parties seeking to invoke this Court’s
jurisdiction, the Defendants New York Life Insurance Company and AARP Corporation a/k/a
American Associate of Retired Persons bear the burden of demonstrating that the jurisdictional
requirements have been met. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 98 (2010); Schur v. L.A. Weight
Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2009). A failure to meet that burden can result in a
remand to state court. See Schur, 577 F.3d at 758. In this case, the Defendants have sufficiently
alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and have sufficiently alleged the
citizenship of the corporations. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 4–7.)
However, citizenship has not been properly alleged for the Plaintiff Mary Pickens
because the Notice of Removal alleges that she “is a resident of Gary, Lake County, Indiana.”
(ECF No. 1, ¶ 3.) Citizenship of a natural person is determined by domicile, not by residence.
Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see also 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).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Defendants New York Life Insurance Company
and AARP Corporation a/k/a American Association of Retired Persons to FILE, on or before,
June 25, 2019, a supplemental jurisdictional statement identifying the domicile of the Plaintiff
Mary Pickens on April 25, 2017.
SO ORDERED on June 12, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?