McClellan v. CSX Transportation Inc et al
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ORDERS Defendant CSX to FILE on or before 10/23/2019 a supplemental jurisdictional statement that alleges the citizenship of Plaintiff McClellan and Defendant Able as outlined herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joshua P Kolar on 10/9/19. (ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ERIC MCCLELLAN, SR.,
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. and
DAVID ABEL, special representative of the
estate of Jeannetta M. McClellan, deceased,
CAUSE NO.: 2:19-CV-290-TLS-JPK
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
Court must dismiss this action if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Currently, the Court is unable to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction over this
Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) invoked this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction via diversity jurisdiction by filing a Notice of Removal. As the party seeking federal
jurisdiction, CSX has the burden of establishing the subject matter jurisdiction exists. Smart v.
Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009).
For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff Eric McClellan, Sr., and Defendants
CSX and David Abel (who is the special representative of the estate of Jeannetta M. McClellan,
deceased) must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must be more than
$75,000. CSX has alleged a sufficient amount in controversy. CSX has also sufficiently alleged its
own citizenship. However, the allegations are insufficient as to the citizenship of Plaintiff
McClellan and Defendant Able.
The Notice of Removal alleges that McClellan is an Illinois resident and is therefore a
citizen of Illinois. Similarly, it is alleged that the decedent, Jeanetta M. McClellan, was a resident
of Indiana when she died, and therefore Able is a citizen of Indiana. 1
“For natural persons, state citizenship is determined by one’s domicile.” Dausch v. Rykse,
9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669,
670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence 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.”); Am.’s Best
Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (“In federal law
citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). Therefore, the Court must be advised as to the
citizenship—which must be based on domicile, not residence—of Plaintiff McClellan and
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendant CSX to FILE on or before
October 23, 2019, a supplemental jurisdictional statement that alleges the citizenship of Plaintiff
McClellan and Defendant Able as outlined above.
So ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2019.
s/ Joshua P. Kolar
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSHUA P. KOLAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
“[T]he 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).
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?