McNeal v. Parsons et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER affords plaintiff 20 days to file amended complaint alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28:1332. Any amendments to the pleadings to be filed by 6/5/2006. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 5/15/06. (smp)

Download PDF
McNeal v. Parsons et al Doc. 6 case 3:06-cv-00306-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 05/15/2006 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff ) ) vs. ) ) CHRIS A. PARSONS and ) HEARTLAND EXPRESS, ) ) Defendants ) ASHLEY McNEAL, CAUSE NO. 3:06-CV-306 RM OPINION and ORDER The court is required to inquire into its own subject matter jurisdiction. Johnson v. Wattenbarger, 361 F.3d 991 (7th Cir. 2004). Ashley McNeal's complaint does not allege the existence of jurisdiction. It alleges that "[d]efendants are a business under the laws of a State other than Indiana, has its principle [sic] place of business in a State other than Indiana and is a citizen of a State other than Indiana," but makes no allegations as to the citizenship of Heartland Express employee Chris Parsons. To invoke the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction, a party must establish complete diversity, that is, Ms. McNeal must satisfy diversity requirements for each defendant. Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., Inc.,108 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 1997). Although the case may be subject to dismissal on this ground, Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2000), the court instead affords the Dockets.Justia.com case 3:06-cv-00306-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 05/15/2006 page 2 of 2 plaintiff twenty days from the date of this order within which to file an amended complaint alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. SO ORDERED. Entered: May 15, 2006 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court cc: counsel of record 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?