Harris, Sr. et al v. Hunter et al

Filing 20

ORDER dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 1/15/2010. (vob) Modified text on 2/5/2010 (llj).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------C AL V IN HARRIS, SR. A.H. and C.H., JR., ORDER Plaintiffs, 0 9 -c v -1 6 2 -s lc v. K B HANSON TRUCKING, INC. and K D HANSON TRUCKING, INC., D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------Plaintiffs Calvin Harris, A.H. and C.H. are suing defendants KB Hanson Trucking, Inc. and KD Hanson Trucking, Inc. for negligence arising out of a car accident that occurred in March 2007. Because plaintiffs assert a state law claim for negligence only, the only basis fo r jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires plaintiffs to show that each defendant is a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff. Smart v. Local 702 International Brother of Electrical Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 803 (7th Cir. 2009). In an order dated December 30, 2009, dkt. #18, I informed plaintiffs that the evidence in the record failed to satisfy the requirements of § 1332. Plaintiffs had identified their state of residence, but not their state of citizenship. "[R]esidence and citizenship are

1

no t synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction." M eyerson v. Harrah's East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). See also C r aig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 2008) ("They claim to be `residents' of Arizo na -- an inadequate jurisdictional claim to begin with, as we repeatedly have reminded litigants and district judges."); McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 653 (7th C ir. 1998) ("An allegation of residence is inadequate."). Further, plaintiffs failed to identify defendan t KB's principal place of business or the state of incorporation of either defendant. B o th of these facts are necessary to determine defendants' citizenship. Hoagland ex rel. M id w est Transit, Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C., 385 F.3d 737, 740-43 (7 th Cir. 2004) (citizenship of corporation determined by state of incorporation and prin cipal place of business). Plaintiffs have responded to the order by simply refiling their complaint, which they say in a cover letter shows that plaintiffs "reside" in Minnesota and that defendants "reside" in North Dakota. Dkt. #19. However, I explained to plaintiffs in the December 30 order that an allegation of residency is not sufficient with respect to individuals. It is meaningless w ith respect to corporations, which cannot "reside" anywhere. This is just the last of a string of examples in which plaintiffs have failed to do the w o r k necessary to prosecute this case. See dkt. ##5, 10, 14, 15 (various orders discussing plaintiff's failures to accomplish service, establish jurisdiction or take other action to move 2

the case to resolution). Plaintiffs are not entitled to another chance. Because plaintiffs have failed to prove that their citizenship is diverse from defendants, I cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case under § 1332. The case must be dismissed.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. E n tered this 15t h day of January, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3