FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver of COUNTRY BANK, Plaintiff,
KENNETH E. HOFFMAN, JR., Defendant.
SARA DARROW, District Judge.
Plaintiff FDIC-Receiver alleges that Defendant Kenneth Hoffman, Jr. defaulted on a loan and breached the terms of a promissory note by failing to timely pay the principal and interest due under the note. FDIC-Receiver seeks to foreclose on financing bonds that secured the loan and promissory note, or a judgment against Hoffman in the amount of $1, 500, 000. FDIC-Receiver, however, has failed to establish this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over its claims. Accordingly, the Court orders FDIC-Receiver to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), with factual allegations, assuming they exist, that establishes subject-matter jurisdiction.
A plaintiff's complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied through either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Smart v. Local 702 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the statute conferring federal-question jurisdiction to the district courts, "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, "[t]he 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 citizens of different states." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A district court has an obligation to review its own jurisdiction sua sponte. Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1181 (7th Cir. 1989).
FDIC-Receiver's complaint contains no statement of the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction. Absent subject-matter jurisdiction, this case cannot move forward. Therefore, the Court orders FDIC-Receiver to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement that includes factual allegations, assuming they exist, that ...