Krassinger et al v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (read order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by May 5, 2014, defendant shall file an amended notice of removal that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of the plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 04/25/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH KRASSINGER &
KIMBERLY KRASSINGER,
PlaintiffS,
vs.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV771 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. 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 defendant seeking
to “invoke federal jurisdiction through removal . . . bears the burden of proving
that the jurisdictional threshold is satisfied.” Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953,
956 (8th Cir. 2009). Removal statutes are strictly construed, and any doubts about
the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand. Wilkinson v. Shakelford,
478 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2007).

The Notice of Removal 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 Notice alleges that plaintiff is a “resident of St. Louis County
Missouri” and that Allstate Insurance Company is a foreign corporation organized
under the law of Illinois with a principal place of business in Illinois. This
allegations are insufficient for the Court to determine whether it has diversity
jurisdiction over this matter.1
Diversity jurisdiction requires that the party be “citizens of different States.”
Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1)). “A complaint that alleges merely residency, rather than citizenship, is
insufficient to plead diverse citizenship.” 15 Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31
(3d ed. 2013); see also Sanders, 823 F.2d at 216.
The Court will grant defendant ten (10) days to file an amended notice of
removal 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.
Accordingly,

1

Both the original Petition and Answer also allege only the residency of Plaintiffs.

-2-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by May 5, 2014, defendant shall file an
amended notice of removal that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of the
plaintiff.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 25th day of April, 2014.

-3-