United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division
MARY BARNHILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
PLA-FIT FRANCHISE, LLC, and MBM FITNESS MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants.
SARA DARROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On December 26, 2014, Defendant PLA-FIT Franchise, LLC (“PLA-FIT”) filed a Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, with this Court. For the following reasons, the Court ORDERS Defendant to file an amended notice of removal. Defendant PLA-FIT’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, ECF No. 2, is FOUND MOOT, and the Court’s Text Order of January 5, 2015 granting that Motion for Extension of Time STRICKEN.
I. Legal Standard
A defendant seeking removal to a federal district court has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, just as he would have had he filed a complaint in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Removal is proper when jurisdictional requirements are satisfied and the removal is timely. Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2004). If there is doubt concerning the jurisdictional basis for removal, that doubt must be resolved in favor of remand to the state court. See Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 838, 841 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) states that “[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.” Accordingly, the two requirements of diversity jurisdiction are: (1) diversity of citizenship, and (2) that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.
The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction “bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements for diversity are met.” Smart v. Local 702 Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009). At the same time, in any case premised on diversity jurisdiction, this Court must “independently determine whether the parties meet the diversity and amount in controversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). In other words, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof, but the Court must independently analyze jurisdiction even if it is not challenged.
In order to satisfy the diversity of citizenship requirement, “complete diversity” must be established-no plaintiff and defendant can be a citizen of the same state. McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th Cir. 2006). A “naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship is never sufficient.” Thomas, 487 F.3d at 533. Rather, the citizenship of each party to the litigation must be identified. Id. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, an individual is a citizen of the state in which that individual is domiciled, Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012); America’s Best Inns v. Best Inns of Abilene, 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), and the citizenship of a limited liability corporation (“LLC”) is the citizenship of each of its members, Thomas, 487 F.3d at 534.
PLA-FIT urges the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction because “complete diversity exists, ” Not. of Removal ¶ 10, between Plaintiff Barnhill, a resident of Illinois, and itself, an LLC, “none of [whose] members is a citizen of Illinois.” Id. ¶ 8. However, PLA-FIT insufficiently alleges diversity of citizenship both as to Barnhill and itself.
A. Barnhill’s Citizenship
The Notice of Removal does not provide enough information for the Court to determine Barnhill’s citizenship. “In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.” America’s Best, 980 F.2d at 1074 (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561 (1915)). Here, the Notice of Removal alleges only that Plaintiff is “a member of the Planet Fitness Gym in Moline, Illinois, ” used the gym “almost daily, ” and is “a resident of Illinois, ” Not. of Removal ¶ 7, as does the Complaint Barnhill filed in state court, Not. of Removal, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 8, 43, 44; ECF No. 1-1. Defendant has therefore failed to establish Barnhill’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Heinen., 671 F.3d at 670 (“But residence may or may not demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile-that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the long run. An allegation of ‘residence’ is therefore deficient.”).
B. PLA-FIT’s Citizenship
PLA-FIT alleges that MBM Fitness, while named in Barnhill’s complaint, is a misnamed defendant with no connection to the Planet Fitness facility described in Barnhill’s original Complaint. Not. of Removal ¶ 9; see Not. of Removal, Ex. 1, ¶ 2. Granting the truth of this ...