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.

Westfield Insurance Co. v. Estate of Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION


November 16, 2006

WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ESTATE OF RANDALL WRIGHT, JEFFREY W. WRIGHT, ZAIL K. WRIGHT, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OMEGA TRUCKING, INC., DANIEL FURLONG, AND NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge

OPINION

On August 11, 2006, Plaintiff, Westfield Insurance Company, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (#1) against Defendants, Estate of Randall Wright, Jeffery W. Wright, Zail K. Wright, Illinois Department of Transportation, Omega Trucking, Inc., Daniel Furlong, and Northland Insurance Company. The Complaint filed did not contain adequate allegations of citizenship to establish diversity jurisdiction. On October 20, 2006, a status conference was held in this case before Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal. The inadequacy of the jurisdictional allegations was discussed at the status conference. Plaintiff requested leave to file an amended complaint, and Plaintiff was allowed until November 10, 2006, to amend its complaint.

On November 10, 2006, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (#29). However, the Amended Complaint filed again does not contain adequate allegations of citizenship to establish diversity jurisdiction. The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between--(1) citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff did not include allegations regarding the citizenship of the parties. Therefore, this court concludes that it is not apparent from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (#29) that it has jurisdiction over this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

(1) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (#29) is dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Plaintiff is allowed until November 30, 2006, to file an Amended Complaint which adequately alleges diversity jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2006.

20061116

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



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.