WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY v. SHIELDS
ENTRY ON JURISDICTION - Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction over this case. This statement should specifically identify the citizenship of the parties. This jurisdictional statement is due fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/27/2017.(JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,
CRAIG SHIELDS doing business as CRAIG'S )
REMODELING & MAINTENANCE,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00558-TWP-TAB
ENTRY ON JURISDICTION
It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege all of the facts
necessary to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The
Complaint alleges jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship. However, the Complaint fails
to sufficiently allege the citizenship of the parties. Citizenship is the operative consideration for
jurisdictional purposes. See Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th
Cir. 2002) (“residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes
of the diversity jurisdiction”). The citizenship of a corporation is “both the state of incorporation
and the state in which the corporation has its principal place of business.” Westfield Ins. Co. v.
Kuhns, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138262, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 30, 2011).
The Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff, Westfield Insurance Company (“Westfield”), is a
foreign company licensed to sell insurance in the State of Indiana. Westfield’s principal place of
business is located at One Park Circle, Westfield Center, Ohio 44251.” This jurisdictional
allegation does not establish the citizenship of Plaintiff Westfield Insurance Company because it
fails to allege the state of incorporation.
Further, the Complaint alleges that “Craig Shields d/b/a Craig’s Remodeling &
Maintenance (“Craig’s Remodeling”), is an adult resident/business in the State of Indiana residing
and/or having its principal place of business at 2408 South Madison Street, Bloomington, Indiana
47403.” (Filing No. 1 at 2.) These allegations of residency, not citizenship, are not sufficient to
allow the Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement that
establishes the Court’s jurisdiction over this case. This statement should specifically identify the
citizenship of the parties. This jurisdictional statement is due fourteen (14) days from the date of
Teirney S. Christenson
YOST & BAILL
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?