From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Layne v. Otis Elevator Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Aug 18, 2015
No. 15-0903-DRH (S.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2015)

Opinion

No. 15-0903-DRH

08-18-2015

JANET L. LAYNE, Plaintiff, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM and ORDER HERNDON, District Judge :

On August 14, 2015, plaintiff filed suit against defendant based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 1). However, a review of the complaint reveals that plaintiff alleged residency rather than citizenship in her complaint. "[R]esidence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction." Meyerson v. Harrah's E. Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). See also Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445, 448 (7th Cir. 2000) ("[A]llegations of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction."); Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998) (same). Thus, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice plaintiff's complaint. The Court ALLOWS plaintiff up to and including September 2, 2015 to file an amended complaint that comports with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 18th day of August, 2015.

/s/

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Layne v. Otis Elevator Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Aug 18, 2015
No. 15-0903-DRH (S.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Layne v. Otis Elevator Co.

Case Details

Full title:JANET L. LAYNE, Plaintiff, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Date published: Aug 18, 2015

Citations

No. 15-0903-DRH (S.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2015)