Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIV. OF ILLINOIS v. INSU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION


December 20, 1989

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff,
v.
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF IRELAND, LTD., et al., Defendants

Milton I. Shadur, United States District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHADUR

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 This Court has just received, via random reassignment stemming from the recusal of its colleague Honorable Harry Leinenweber, this three-party action in which Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois ("U of I") sues Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd. ("ICI") and Marsh & McLennan, Inc. ("Marsh") *fn1" and ICI has advanced a Counterclaim for Rescission against U of I. Based on its initial review of the court file, *fn2" this Court sua sponte dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 At this stage the lawsuit is already at issue (both ICI and Marsh have filed Answers to U of I's Complaint), and there is also a just-fully-briefed motion by U of I to dismiss ICI's Counterclaim for Rescission. But what the lawsuit does not come equipped with is federal jurisdiction.

 Complaint para. 1 correctly sets out both components of U of I's corporate citizenship under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(c): *fn3" Both its place of incorporation and its principal place of business are of course in Illinois. Complaint para. 2 alleges ICI's status as a corporation of Ireland, the only thing that needs to be alleged as to such a "citizen[] or subject[] of a foreign state" under Section 1332(a)(2). So far, so good.

 But Complaint para. 4 says only this about Marsh:

 

Defendant, M & M is an insurance brokerage firm incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains an office in Chicago, Illinois.

 And all Marsh's Answer does is to admit that allegation. But the basic problem here is an obvious one: Not only does the Complaint fail to identify Marsh's principal place of business as it is required to do by Section 1332(c), but this Court is almost able to take judicial notice that Illinois is the state that fits that description. *fn4"

  For over 180 years it has been firmly established that no diversity jurisdiction exists when any opposing parties are citizens of the same state ( Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)). *fn5" U of I's sharing of Illinois citizenship with Marsh therefore destroys jurisdiction here, and this action must be and is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *fn6"

 Date: December 20, 1989


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.