GOAR v. FEDERATED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
ORDER - The Court ORDERS Mr. Goar to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before June 19, 2013, which addresses the jurisdictional concerns noted above. Federated need not respond to the Amended Complaint, [dkt. 6], but rather shall timely respond to the Second Amended Complaint once it is filed. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/10/2013. (JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ANDREW W. GOAR,
FEDERATED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff Andrew Goar filed an Amended Complaint on June 7, 2013 in which he appears
to allege that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter. [Dkt. 6 at 1, ¶¶ 1-4.]1 Specifically, Mr. Goar alleges that: (1) he is a citizen of Indiana, [id. at 1, ¶ 1]; (2) Defendant Federated
Life Insurance Company (“Federated”) is “a citizen of the State of Minnesota with its principal
place of business located [in]…Owatonna, [Minnesota],” [id. at 1, ¶ 2]; and (3) “[t]he amount in
controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000),” [id. at 1, ¶ 3].
The Court must independently determine whether proper diversity among the parties exists. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). The Court is not being
hyper-technical: Counsel has a professional obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction,
Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012), and a federal court always
has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction, Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420,
427 (7th Cir. 2009). Based on Mr. Goar’s Amended Complaint, the Court cannot determine
whether it can exercise jurisdiction over this case.
Mr. Goar states that “[t]his Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §
1391,” [dkt. 6 at 1, ¶ 4], but § 1391 governs venue, not subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court
suspects that Mr. Goar meant to cite to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, rather than § 1391 – his Amended
Complaint only asserts common law claims, so diversity jurisdiction would be the only possible
basis for the Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction.
Specifically, and assuming that Mr. Goar intends to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Mr. Goar is reminded that: (1) a corporation has two places of citizenship: where it has its
principal place of business and where it is incorporated, Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc.,
469 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006), and Mr. Goar must set forth both; and (2) the amount in controversy must exceed “$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added).
The Court ORDERS Mr. Goar to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before June
19, 2013, which addresses the jurisdictional concerns noted above. Federated need not respond
to the Amended Complaint, [dkt. 6], but rather shall timely respond to the Second Amended
Complaint once it is filed.
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF only:
Robert E. Saint
EMSWILLER WILLIAMS NOLAND & CLARKE
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?