Bomkamp v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by October 3, 2013, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing the parties' citizenship. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending further order of this Court. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 10/3/2013. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/26/2013. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC.,
No. 4:13-CV-1569 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file following transfer to the undersigned.
The Eighth Circuit has admonished district courts to “be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional
requirements in all cases.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). “In every
federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to the merits of other
legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 2006).
“A plaintiff who seeks to invoke diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts must plead citizenship
distinctly and affirmatively.” 15 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31 (3d
The Complaint in this case asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the lawsuit is between citizens of different States and the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. The Complaint alleges that plaintiff Brian Bomkamp is
“a resident in the State of Missouri” who was injured on the premises of the Hilton Madison Monona
Terrace hotel in Madison, Wisconsin, when he slipped and fell on ice outside the hotel’s entrance.
Complaint at 1, ¶¶ 1, 5. The Complaint alleges that defendant Hilton Worldwide, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation “with hotels located in the State of Missouri.” Id., ¶ 2.1 These allegations are
insufficient for the Court to determine whether complete diversity of citizenship exists, and thus
whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
The Complaint alleges that plaintiff resides in Missouri, but does not allege facts concerning
his citizenship. “A complaint that alleges merely residency, rather than citizenship, is insufficient
to plead diverse citizenship.” 15 Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31; see Sanders, 823 F.2d at 215
n.1. In addition, the Complaint alleges that defendant is a Delaware corporation, but does not
contain any allegations concerning its principal place of business. A corporation is deemed to be
a citizen of both the State in which it is incorporated and the State in which it has its principal place
of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 215 n.1 (8th Cir.
The Court will grant plaintiff seven (7) days to file an amended complaint that alleges facts
showing the existence of the requisite diversity of citizenship of the parties. If plaintiff fails to
timely and fully comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by October 3, 2013, plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint that alleges facts establishing the parties’ citizenship.
The Court notes that defendant Hilton Worldwide, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss this
case on the grounds that (1) it does not own the Hilton Madison hotel in Madison, Wisconsin, where
plaintiff alleges he was injured and, (2) in the alternative, venue is improper in this district. In the
alternative, defendant moves for a transfer of venue to the Western District of Wisconsin pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this
order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
further order of this Court.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of September, 2013.
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?