Buy This Entire Record For
Smith v. United States Steel Corporation
United States District Court, Seventh Circuit
October 16, 2013
JAMES SMITH, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, BOWEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, and HATCH ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS, INC., a/k/a HATCH ENGINEERING, a/k/a/HATCH, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
In light of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals admonitions, see Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court has undertaken a rigorous initial review of pleadings to ensure that jurisdiction has been properly pled. The Court has noted the following defect in the jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal (Doc. 2) filed by defendant Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc.:
Failure to allege the citizenship of an individual. A notice of removal 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. Notice of removal alleges residence but not citizenship of plaintiff, James Smith.
The Court hereby ORDERS that defendant Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. Shall have up to and including October 30, 2013 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defect. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. 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. Defendant Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. is directed to consult Local Rule 15.1 regarding amended pleadings ...