Natale et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Joan and Richard Natale are given leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this order to address the identified defects. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, the action will be dismissed. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/18/15. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOAN NATALE and RICHARD NATALE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-0440
Plaintiffs,
(JUDGE CAPUTO)

v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Complaint (Doc. 1) filed by Plaintiffs Joan and Richard
Natale on March 4, 2015.

Plaintiffs assert that the Court’s basis for subject matter

jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (Id., ¶ 1.) Because
the Complaint fails to establish that the parties have diverse citizenship, it will be dismissed
unless Plaintiffs can show that diversity jurisdiction is proper.
I. Analysis
The Complaint does not adequately state diversity of citizenship, as it fails to properly
identify the state of citizenship of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”). Federal
courts have an obligation to address issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
Meritcare Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 166 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 1999). 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1) gives district courts original jurisdiction to hear cases where the matter in
controversy exceeds the value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) and is between
citizens of different states.
“It is . . . well established that when jurisdiction depends upon diverse citizenship the
absence of sufficient averments or of facts in the record showing such required diversity of
citizenship is fatal and cannot be overlooked by the court, even if the parties fail to call
attention to the defect, or consent that it may be waived.” Thomas v. Bd. of Trs., 195 U.S.
207, 211 (1904). Moreover, “[w]hen the foundation of federal authority is, in a particular
instance, open to question, it is incumbent upon the courts to resolve such doubts, one way
or the other, before proceeding to a disposition of the merits.” Carlsberg Res. Corp. v.

Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 554 F.2d 1254, 1256 (3d Cir. 1977); see also Fed R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to demonstrate the requirements of federal subject matter
jurisdiction because it insufficiently alleges the citizenship of Defendant Wal-Mart, a
corporation. A corporation may only have one principal place of business, and proper
invocation of diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff allege where a corporation has
“its principal place of business.” See S. Freedman & Co., Inc. v. Raab, 180 F. App'x 316,
320 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint alleging where the
plaintiff corporation maintained “a principal place of business,” rather than “its principal place
of business”). A corporation's principal place of business is its “nerve center,” the place
“where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.”
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010). Here, the Complaint only includes where
Defendant Wal-Mart has “a principal place of business.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 4.) To properly plead
diverse citizenship, Plaintiffs must allege Wal-Mart’s singular principal place of business.
II. Conclusion
As Plaintiffs have not shown that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the
parties, the Court cannot determine that subject matter jurisdiction exists and the matter is
subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). However, Plaintiffs
will be given twenty-one (21) days to amend the complaint to show that diversity jurisdiction
exists. Failure to do so will result in this action being dismissed.

NOW, this 18th day of March, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Joan
and Richard Natale are given leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days
from the date of entry of this order to address the identified defects. If Plaintiffs fail to do so,
the action will be dismissed.
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
2