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.

Barbara Kussman v. Johnson & Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 28, 2011

BARBARA KUSSMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. Specifically, the Court VACATES the direction in its Memorandum and Order (Doc. 9) of June 22, 2011, requiring periodic status reports.

Additionally, the Court notes the following defect in the jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal (Doc. 2) filed by Defendants:

! Failure to allege citizenship of corporate member of an unincorporated association. To determine if complete diversity exists, the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of a limited liability company. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003). The relevant pleading must affirmatively allege the specific states of citizenship of each member of thelimited liability company, and "the citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be." Meyerson v. Harrah's E. Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002).For a corporate member, the pleading must affirmatively allege the state of its principal place of business and the state of its incorporation. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (2006). Here, the notice of removal alleges the state of incorporation of the sole member of Defendant Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC, but it does not allege its principal place of business.

Notwithstanding the stay of this case, the Court ORDERS that Defendants shall have up to and including July 8, 2011, to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defect.

Failure to amend the faulty pleading may result in remand of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amendment of the faulty pleading to reflect an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction will satisfy this order. Defendants are directed to consult Local Rule 15.1 regarding amended pleadings and need not seek leave of Court to file such amended pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. Phil Gilbert

20110628

© 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.