Lowe v. State Farm Insurance Company

Filing 57

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KIMBERLY A. LOWE,
Plaintiff,

CASE NUMBER: 12-13615
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE CO.
Defendants,

/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The Court, however, is not satisfied that complete
diversity exists under § 1332.
Section 1332 requires that Plaintiff be of different citizenship than each
defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff alleges that complete diversity exists under
§ 1332(a)(1) because the defendant is a foreign company headquartered in Illinois,
regularly conducting business in Michigan. Plaintiff does not say whether this company
is a corporation or other legal entity. The Court issued a show cause order saying “If
the company is a corporation, under § 1332(c), Plaintiff must plead where the
corporation conducts its principal places of business and is incorporated. Id. §
1332(c)(1). The complaint does not list the corporation’s principal place of business or
state of incorporation. If it is some other legal entity, such as a LLC, Plaintiff must list
the citizenship of each member. Delphi Automotive Systems LLC v. Segway Inc., 519
1

F.Supp.2d 662, 665 (E.D. Mich. 2007).”
Plaintiff was also asked to properly allege her citizenship. Plaintiff’s Complaint
says “Plaintiff, KIMBERLY A. LOWE was at all times relevant hereto a resident of the
City of Detroit, County of Wayne, and State of Michigan.” The Court’s show cause
order said: “This allegation is insufficient; she must specifically allege which state she is
a citizen of, not her residency. See Realty Holding Co. v. Donaldson, 268 U.S. 398,
399-400, 45 S. Ct. 521, 69 L. Ed. 1014 (1925); see also Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity
Ins. Co., 148 U.S. 389, 389, 13 S. Ct. 602, 37 L. Ed. 493 (1893); Walker v. Iverson, 509
Fed. Appx. 394 (6th Cir. 2012) ("It has been many times decided that an averment that
one is a resident of a particular state is not equivalent to an averment that he is a citizen
of that state.").”
Plaintiff was ordered to respond, in writing, by April 10, 2014 to show cause as to
why complete diversity exists under § 1332. The Court sent an e-mail to Plaintiff on
Monday, April 14, 2014, alerting her that the Court was going to dismiss this case if she
did not respond to the show cause request. It is now April 17, 2014, and Plaintiff has
not responded.
The Complaint is DISMISSED. This Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED.
/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: April 17, 2014

2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
April 17, 2014.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3