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.

Stephen Payne v. Core Minerals Operating Co. Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 23, 2011

STEPHEN PAYNE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
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 the plaintiff's response to the Court's June 14, 2011, order to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The plaintiff has cured the noted defect: the inadequate pleading of the citizenship of corporate defendant Core Minerals Co. Inc. Accordingly, the Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause (Doc. 5).

In repleading, however, the plaintiff has changed the allegation of his citizenship to an allegation of his residence. A complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of an individual defendant, not merely residence. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Meyerson v. Harrah's East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998). Allegations of "residence" are jurisdictionally insufficient. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905). Dismissal is appropriate where parties allege residence but not citizenship. Held, 137 F.3d at 1000.

The plaintiff must once again amend his complaint to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)'s requirement that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." The Court ORDERS that the plaintiff shall have up to and including July 1, 2011, to file a second amended complaint curing this latest defect. The plaintiff need not seek leave of court to file this pleading, and should observe Local Rule 15.1 regarding underlining new material. If the plaintiff fails to amend his complaint, the Court may dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995). IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. Phil Gilbert

20110623

© 1992-2011 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.