MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Texaco Pipeline, Inc. ("Pipeline") and Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. ("Refining") have joined in filing a Notice of Removal ("Notice") of this action to this District Court from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois--more precisely from its Municipal Department, Sixth Municipal District. Although Notice P 3 properly sets out the required diversity of citizenship
and although the Notice was timely filed, this Court is constrained to remand this action to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction--more specifically, because of the absence of the requisite amount in controversy.
This Court has already expressed its views on the troublesome problem posed by the prohibition of Illinois law against quantifying in a complaint the specific ad damnum sought by plaintiffs in personal injury cases, as that prohibition impacts on the necessary determination of the jurisdictional amount in controversy for removal purposes ( Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 371-78 (7th Cir. 1993)). Because that view did not carry the day, this Court will of course adhere to the principles announced by the majority in that case ( id. at 366-68 ). But in that respect this action is critically different from the one at issue in Shaw (even though it is also illustrative of the problem that this Court sought to identify there).
In this case each of the Tokarzes--Denis in Count I, brought under the Illinois Structural Work Act, and Shirley in Count II, sounding in loss of consortium--has specified a claim of $ 29,999.99. That amount is $ .01 below the watershed that establishes jurisdiction of the Municipal Department in contrast to that of the Circuit Court's Law Division (see Circuit Court General Orders 2.1 and 2.2(b)(ii)). Because each Tokarz must establish federal jurisdiction independently, the jurisdictional amount cannot be satisfied by totting up their individual claims--as succinctly stated in Griffith v. Sealtite Corp., 903 F.2d 495, 498 (7th Cir. 1990):
Multiple plaintiffs with separate and distinct claims must each satisfy the jurisdictional amount; they cannot aggregate "claims where none of the claimants satisfies the jurisdictional amount." Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 294-95, 38 L. Ed. 2d 511, 94 S. Ct. 505 [(1973)].