Herro et al v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/11/2013. On or before 10/11/2013 removing Defendants MUST FILE amended notice of removal. Failure to file by stated deadline will result in and order remanding action without further notice. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THERESE HERRO and
THOMAS HERRO,
Plaintiffs,
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Involuntary Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 13-C-985
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
THE BON-TON DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
CAPITAL BUILDING SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
In its routine review of civil actions, the Court has recognized jurisdictional
deficiencies in the notice of removal filed in this action. (ECF No. 1.) Rather than
remanding the case, the Court will afford the removing Defendants an opportunity to
remedy those deficiencies.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States
for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). The party seeking removal, as the proponent of federal subject
matter jurisdiction, has the burden of proof as to the existence of such jurisdiction.
Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Good, 689 F.3d 714, 722 (7th Cir. 2012). “Courts should
interpret the removal statute narrowly and presume that the plaintiff may choose his or
her forum.” Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993). In other
words, there is a strong presumption in favor of remand.
In general, federal courts have jurisdiction diversity in actions where there is
complete diversity of citizenship; that is, no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as
any defendant, and an amount in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, is
in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enters. Inc.,
533 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2008). The defects in the notice of removal relate to the
sufficiency of its allegation regarding the citizenship of the parties.
The citizenship of a corporation for diversity purposes is the state where the
corporation is incorporated and the state where the corporation has its principal place
of business, that is, the corporation's headquarters or “nerve center.” See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 91-97 (2010); Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs.,
632 F.3d 971, 979 (7th Cir. 2011). Allegations of citizenship made on information and
belief are insufficient to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction. See America's Best Inns,
Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.1992) (only a statement
about jurisdiction “made on personal knowledge has any value” and a statement made
“„to the best of my knowledge and belief‟ is insufficient” to engage federal jurisdiction
in diversity). The citizenship of Defendants Hartford Fire Insurance Company and
-2-
Capital Building Services Group, Inc. is alleged “upon information and belief.”
(Notice of Removal ¶ 8.) That allegation is insufficient.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
On or before October 11, 2013, the removing Defendants MUST FILE an
amended notice of removal; and
Failure to file an amended notice of removal by the stated deadline will result
in an order remanding this action without further notice.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of September, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-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?