Scott v. LaSalle Bank, NA

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant LaSalle Bank, NA. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to dismiss [ECF #11] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/25/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
CLAUDE SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
LASALLE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-cv-0205-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant LaSalle Bank’s motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Plaintiff opposes
the motion. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.
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).
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s complaint fails to establish that the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that
he is a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, and that the defendant is located in Chicago,
Illinois. Plaintiff further alleges that the amount in controversy is $25,319.84. Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in order for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, complete
diversity among the parties must exist and the amount in controversy must exceed

$75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs. “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. 2010).
For diversity purposes, a corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it is
incorporated and the state where its principal place of business is located. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1). Here, plaintiff has failed to allege defendant’s place of citizenship. Although
the complaint alleges that defendant is located in Illinois, this allegation is inadequate as
to defendant’s state of incorporation and principal place of business. Furthermore, the
amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00. The Court finds that the allegations
of the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court further finds no allegations sufficient to establish federal question
jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts state law claims of breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure,
and slander of title. He does not maintain that his claims arise under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and, therefore, the complaint must be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to dismiss [ECF #11] is
GRANTED.
Dated this 25th day of May, 2016.
___________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2