Shephard v. Breeza

Filing 3

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION -.... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by October 19, 2015, plaintiff shall filed an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if p laintiff does not timely and fully comply with this Order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Response to Court due by 10/19/2015.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/14/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID SHEPHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT A. BREEZA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1563 CAS

ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. “Courts have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94
(2010). “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).
In this case, plaintiff’s complaint asserts that federal jurisdiction exists based on diversity
of citizenship. Complaint at 1, ¶ 3. Complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs 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. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987);
see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is well established that allegations concerning the parties’ residency do
not satisfy requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction. Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760
F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2014); Pattiz v. Schwartz, 386 F.2d 300, 301 (8th Cir. 1968) (citing
cases). “In both common parlance and legal usage, ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ have overlapping but
distinct meanings. See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 1502 (10th ed. 2014) (explaining ‘a resident
is not necessarily either a citizen or a domiciliary’); New Oxford American Dictionary 1485 (3d ed.
2010) (defining ‘resident’ as ‘a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis’
(emphasis added)).” Reece, 760 F.3d 778.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges plaintiff is a “resident of the County of St. Louis, State of
Missouri,” and defendant is a “resident of the County of Nelson, State of Kentucky.” Complaint at
1, ¶¶ 1, 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is procedurally defective because it does not contain sufficient
allegations of jurisdictional facts to establish the existence of diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff will
be required to amend his 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 between 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 October 19, 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.

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 14th day of October, 2015.

3