Nithyananda Dhanapeetam of St. Louis v. Aarthi S. Rao et al

Filing 7

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 3, 2013, plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this order, this matter will be dismissed 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 9/3/2013. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/29/2013. (NCL) Modified docket text on 8/29/2013 (NCL).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

NITHYANANDA DHANAPEETAM OF
ST. LOUIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AARTHI S. RAO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1683 CAS

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION
This diversity 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). Statutes conferring diversity jurisdiction are to be strictly construed, Sheehan v.
Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992), and the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts
is on the party asserting jurisdiction, here the plaintiffs. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp. of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). “[T]he court may . . . insist that the jurisdictional facts
be established or the case be dismissed[.] Id.
In this case, plaintiff’s complaint asserts that jurisdiction exists based on diversity of
citizenship. Complaint at 2, ¶ 3. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship
between plaintiffs and defendants. Buckley v. Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6 (8th Cir.
1991). To establish complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must include factual allegations
of each party’s place of citizenship. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir.

1987); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The complaint alleges that the defendants “reside” in Michigan.
Complaint at 1, ¶ 2. Rather than allegations of residence, there must be allegations of citizenship.
Sanders, 823 F.2d at 216; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is well established that an allegation of
residence is not the equivalent of an allegation of citizenship, Sanders, 823 F.2d at 216, and is
insufficient to allege citizenship. Jones v. Hadican, 552 F.2d 249, 251 n.3 (8th Cir. 1977).
As a result, the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations of jurisdictional facts to
establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff will be required to amend its complaint to
correct this deficiency. Plaintiff will be granted five (5) days to file an amended complaint that
alleges facts showing complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. Plaintiff’s failure to
timely and fully comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 3, 2013, plaintiff shall file an Amended
Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this
order, this matter will be dismissed 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 29th day of August, 2013.
2