UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 2, 2011
STEPHEN PAYNE, PLAINTIFF,
CORE MINERALS OPERATING CO., INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own initiative for purposes of case management. Specifically, the Court questions whether it has jurisdiction over this matter.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They may exercise jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and by statute. Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, 111 F.3d 1312, 1316 (7th Cir. 1997). Moreover, federal courts must police the boundaries of their own jurisdiction. Even absent an objection by a party challenging jurisdiction, they are "obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction." Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445, 448-49 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977)). As such, this Court conducts a rigorous initial review of complaints to ensure that jurisdiction has been properly pled.
In his Complaint (Doc. 2), Plaintiff has invoked but not properly pled diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction over a civil action between citizensof different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (2006). "For the purposes of [§ 1332(c)] . . . , a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business[.]" Se. Guar. Trust Co., Ltd. v. Rodman & Renshaw, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 1001, 1005-1006 (N.D. Ill. 1973) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged either the state of incorporation or the principal place of business of Defendant.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to correct these and any other jurisdictional defects by June 10, 2011. See Tylka, 211 F.3d at 448 ("[I]t is not the court's obligation to lead counsel through a jurisdictional paint-by-numbers scheme."). Should he fail to do so, the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.