Grussing v. Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 1, 2015, 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 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. Response to Court due by 9/1/2015.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/27/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LESLIE GRUSSING,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORTHOPEDIC AND SPORTS MEDICINE,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1333 CAS

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION
This diversity 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). “Federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs
from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible and without
exception.” Kessler v. National Enters., Inc., 347 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks
and quoted case omitted). 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 plaintiff. 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.
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that federal jurisdiction exists based on diversity of citizenship.
Complaint at 2, ¶ 8. Complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendants is required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Buckley v. Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6 (8th Cir. 1991).
“Complete diversity of citizenship exists where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state

where any plaintiff holds citizenship.” OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th
Cir. 2007). To establish complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must include factual
allegations of each party’s state of citizenship, including allegations of any corporate party’s state
of incorporation and principal place of business. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216
(8th Cir. 1987); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, Inc. is a
Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, and that defendant Corey
Solman, Jr. is a citizen of Missouri. Plaintiff alleges that she was at all relevant times a “resident
of the State of Illinois.” Complaint at 1, ¶ 1. 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 does not satisfy
the pleading requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Jones v.
Hadican, 552 F.2d 249, 251 n.3 (8th Cir. 1977); Pattiz v. Schwartz, 386 F.2d 300, 301 (8th Cir.
1968).
Plaintiff’s complaint is procedurally defective because it does not contain sufficient
allegations of jurisdictional facts to establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff will
be required to amend her complaint to correct this defect, and 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 without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by September 1, 2015, plaintiff shall file an Amended
Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action.

2

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 27th day of August, 2015.

3