Kinsella v. OfficeMax Incorporated et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this cause of action should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. Such dismissal may be avoided by an amendment of the pleadings within seven (7) days of this order, asserting an appropriate basis for federal court jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 1/7/2016. (bbf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

RONNA KINSELLA

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-194-MPM-JMV

OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED,
OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA,
INC., AND OFFICEMAX, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter is before the court, sua sponte, to dismiss this cause of action for lack of
federal jurisdiction as explained hereafter.1 Such dismissal may be avoided by an amendment of
the pleadings within seven (7) days of this order, asserting an appropriate basis for federal court
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, Ronna Kinsella, seeks to assert jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; however, such attempt is inadequate because the complaint
does not adequately identify the citizenship of the parties. “The party asserting diversity
jurisdiction must ‘distinctly and affirmatively allege[ ]’ the citizenship of the parties.” Molina v.
Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., 535 F.Supp.2d 805, 807 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (citing Howery v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001)).
The complaint refers to Defendant OfficeMax Incorporated, Defendant OfficeMax North
America, Inc., and Defendant OfficeMax, Inc. (“the Defendants”) as merely “foreign for-profit
corporation(s).” It further states that the “principle office address” for each of the Defendants is
“6600 North Military Trail, Boca Raton, Florida 33496.”
1

Although Defendants have not argued a failure in this respect, the court must make an independent inquiry into its jurisdiction.
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing Bender v. Willamsport Area Sch. Dist.,
475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)) (“[I]t is the obligation of both district court and counsel to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.”).

The complaint is insufficient because Plaintiff fails to properly identify the state of
incorporation or principal place of business for the Defendants. “A corporation's citizenship
derives, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, from its State of incorporation and principal place of
business.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
Thus, it does not appear on the face of the complaint that this court has subject matter
jurisdiction. As noted, this defect may be corrected by the filing, within seven (7) days of this
order, of an amended pleading asserting the citizenship of the parties and establishing complete
diversity. Failure to do so will result in the court dismissing the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED this, the 7th day of January, 2016.

/s/Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE