Wilmington Jr. v. J.E. Phillips and Sons, Inc. et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by November 17, 2014, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing his own citizenship and the citizenship of each defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D 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. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/06/2014. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL A. WILMINGTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J.E. PHILLIPS & SONS, INC., et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:14 CV 1801 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 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 ed. 2013).
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 Michael Wilmington is a “resident of St. Claire
County, State of Illinois.” It also alleges that defendant Robert Howell is a
resident of Missouri and that defendant Undray Kilpatrick is a resident of Illinois.
Finally, the Complaint alleges that J.E. Phillips and Sons, Inc. is a “corporation
currently in good standing with the Secretary of State, State of Tennessee and is an
interstate commercial trucking company which travels through the state of
Missouri.” These allegations are insufficient for the Court to determine whether it
has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
“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. Because plaintiff only alleges his own
residency and the residencies of the defendants Kilpatrick and Howell, he does not
allege their citizenship.
Similar deficiencies appear with regard to J.E. Phillips and Sons. That entity
is a corporation, and thus it is a citizen of both its state of organization and its
principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), (c)(1); Sanders, 823 F.2d at
215 n.1. Thus, for defendant J.E. Phillips and Sons, plaintiff must establish its
state of incorporation and principal place of business. Neither appears in the
Complaint.
-2-
The Court will grant plaintiff ten (10) 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.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by November 17, 2014, plaintiff shall
file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing his own citizenship and
the citizenship of each defendant.
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.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of November, 2014.
-3-
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?