Beck v. L.R.F Knife Grinding & Rental Co. et al
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS the Plaintiff to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement on or before 7/1/2019, curing the deficiencies in the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the order. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/17/2019. (bas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JAMES BECK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-356-TLS
ESTATE OF RENATO A. FRANCH, by its
co-personal representatives MANA L.
FRANCH and MARIA L. FRANCH;
ESTATE OF LINO RAUZI, by its personal
representative, GABRIELLA RAUZI; and
L.R.F. KNIFE CO. a/k/a L.R.F.
KNIFEGRINDING & RENTAL CO.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has an ongoing duty to police its
subject matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir.
2002).
On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff James Beck filed a Complaint in this Court, alleging
that the District Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
(Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 4.) 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 party seeking
to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, the Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the
jurisdictional requirements have been met. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010); Smart
v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802–03 (7th Cir. 2009). A failure to meet
that burden can result in a dismissal. See Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co.,
LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). In this case, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, there are several defects in the allegations of
citizenship.
First, the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff is a “resident of Porter County, Indiana.”
(Compl. ¶ 1.) An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled, and residence and
citizenship are not synonymous for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312
F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670
(7th Cir. 2012) (A[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). Therefore, the Plaintiff must allege his domicile on the date the Complaint
was filed.
Likewise, the allegations as to the Estate of Renato A. Franch and the Estate of Lino
Rauzi are insufficient. The Complaint alleges that Renato A. Franch and Lino Rauzi each
“resided in the state of Illinois.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) The citizenship of an estate is governed by 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), which provides that “the legal representative of the estate of a decedent
shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2);
see also Gustafson v. zumBrunnen, 546 F.3d 398, 399 (7th Cir. 2008). Again, an individual is a
citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Dakuras, 312 F.3d at 258. Thus, the Plaintiff
must allege the domicile of Renato A. Franch and the domicile of Lino Rauzi.
Finally, the allegation as to the citizenship of the corporate defendant L.R.F. Knife Co. is
insufficient. (Compl. ¶ 4.) The Complaint alleges that “L R F Knife Co. a/k/a L.R.F. Knife
2
Grinding & Rental Co was an Illinois Company.” Id. 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., 559 U.S. at 92–93
(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). The Plaintiff must allege the state of incorporation and the principal place of business
of the corporate defendant.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiff to file a supplemental jurisdictional
statement on or before July 1, 2019, curing the deficiencies in the jurisdictional allegations set
forth above.
SO ORDERED on June 17, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
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?