Wright, Steven v. Fischer, Todd et al

Filing 3

ORDER Regarding Jurisdiction. Proof of Diversity Citizenship due 11/5/2015. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/22/2015. (voc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

STEVEN O. WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
15-cv-577-wmc
TODD FISCHER and ADAM TEASDALE,
Defendants.

In this civil action, plaintiff Steven O. Wright brings state law claims arising out of
false statements allegedly made by defendants Todd Fischer and Adam Teasdale. Wright
invokes this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, asserting that complete diversity
exists between the parties. Wright’s complaint, however, fails to allege facts sufficient to
establish diversity jurisdiction.
The court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77,
94 (2010). The Seventh Circuit also instructs that “the party seeking to invoke federal
jurisdiction[] bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements for diversity are
met.”

Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir.

2009).
Diversity jurisdiction exists when a complaint shows that there is complete
diversity of citizenship among the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th
Cir. 2006) (explaining that complete diversity means that “no plaintiff may be a citizen

of the same state as any defendant”). Here, the complaint alleges more than $75,000 in
controversy and the allegations of defamation and intentional interference with contract
make this at least plausible, particularly given the possibility of punitive damages. The
complaint also alleges that plaintiff Wright resides in Iowa while defendants Fischer and
Teasdale both reside in Wisconsin.

However, it is the citizenship of the parties that

controls, not residence. See Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 867 (7th
Cir. 2012). Furthermore, an allegation that someone resides in a particular state is not
an allegation that he is a citizen of that state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See
Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905).
As natural persons, Wright, Fischer and Teasdale are considered citizens of the
U.S. state of their domicile, provided that they are U.S. Citizens or permanent residents.
See, e.g., Dausch v. Ryske, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993). An individual’s domicile is
the place where he “intends to remain.” Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir.
2002).
Of course, plaintiff and the two defendants are likely “domiciled” in the states in
which they reside. The court must nevertheless confirm that complete diversity exists,
given that defendants live near the border between Wisconsin and Iowa, the complaint
contains no details about the circumstances of plaintiff’s residence in Iowa, and the
Seventh Circuit’s insistence on precision in pleading subject matter jurisdiction.

See

Winforge, 691 F.3d at 867. Wright must, therefore, allege the necessary jurisdictional
facts in order to proceed. The court will grant plaintiff leave to file within fourteen days
a declaration or affidavit verifying his citizenship and the citizenship of defendants.
2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) plaintiff shall have until November 5, 2015, to file a declaration or affidavit
containing good faith allegations sufficient to establish complete diversity of
citizenship for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332; and
2) failure to amend timely shall result in prompt dismissal of this matter for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 22nd day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3