Morehouse et al v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 110

OPINION AND ORDER directing Plaintiffs to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement by 6/27/2019 identifying the domicile of plaintiffs on the date the Complaint was filed. The deadline for parties to file their dismissal papers is extended to 7/8/2019. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/18/19. (ksc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
MYRON MOREHOUSE and AMY
MOREHOUSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 4:16-CV-4-TLS

FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., ECOA
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC., and
ALOCA, INC.,
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 Complaint alleges that the Court’s original subject matter jurisdiction is based on
diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.) 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. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As the parties seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs
bear 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 Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the citizenship of the corporate Defendants and
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

However, the Complaint alleges that the “Plaintiffs Myron Morehouse and Amy
Morehouse are husband and wife and are residents of Indiana.” (Compl. ¶ 1). 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) (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 “residence” are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiffs to FILE, on or before, June 27, 2019, a
supplemental jurisdictional statement identifying the domicile of Plaintiffs Myron Morehouse
and Amy Morehouse on January 12, 2016, the date the Complaint was filed. Because this
supplemental jurisdictional statement must be filed prior to the parties filing their dismissal
papers, the Court extends the deadline for the parties to file their dismissal papers to July 8,
2019.
SO ORDERED on June 18, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2