Factual allegations of citizenship must be made in the pleadings, demonstrating complete diversity. See Chicago Stadium Corp. v.State of Indiana, 220 F.2d 797, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1955) (emphasis added). In its Notice of Removal, (Doc. 2), Defendant alleges, in part, that diversity jurisdiction exists in that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are citizens of different states.
On the same day, the court wrote to plaintiffs' attorneys, in part as follows: โ Allegations of the location of the parties' permanent mailing addresses do not appear to comply with the requirements set forth in [ Chicago Stadium Corporation v. State of Indiana, 220 F.2d 797, 798 (7th Cir. 1955)], and the court deems itself bound by the direction of such case. โ If this apparent defect in jurisdiction cannot be rectified by amendment of the complaint, please notify the court by April 23, 1970 why this case should not be dismissed upon the court's own motion for lack of jurisdiction.โ
Consequently, we vacated the district court's judgment on the merits and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id.; see also Guaranty, 101 F.3d at 59; see, e.g., Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998); Dausch v. Ryske, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); Chicago Stadium Corp. v. State of Indiana, 220 F.2d 797, 799 (7th Cir. 1955). As we have stated in the past,
Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 305 F.2d 794 (CA 8); United States for Use of Bryant Elec. Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., supra. Even though the allegations of the original complaint with respect to jurisdiction of the court were defective, the trial or appellate court had full power to correct them. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1653; Stern v. Beer, 200 F.2d 794 (CA 6); Chicago Stadium Corporation v. State of Indiana, 220 F.2d 797 (CA 7). Cf. Moore v. Coats Company, 270 F.2d 410 (CA 3). We do not follow the argument that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the amendment.
In no event, however, is the plaintiff seeking to amend defective allegations of jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 1653. Chicago Stadium Corporation v. State of Indiana, 7 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 797, is, therefore, inapplicable. Plaintiff in its motion to amend its first motion filed on April 25, 1958 illustrates clearly the difference when it states that in Chicago Stadium this court held "that allegation in complaint that plaintiff is a resident of state of Illinois, and that defendants and each of them are residents of the state of Indiana was insufficient to allege federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship, but that plaintiffs should be permitted to amend complaint to show federal jurisdiction."
Factual allegations of citizenship must be made in the pleadings, demonstrating complete diversity. See Chicago Stadium Corp. v. State of Indiana, 220 F.2d 797, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1955) (emphasis added). In his complaint, McLean alleges that he is a resident of Illinois and that defendant Malik is a resident of Ontario (Doc. 2, ยถ ยถ 1 & 2). Further, McLean's complaint does not mention the citizenship of the other defendant, HGC Transport, DBA HGC. These allegations will not suffice. "[R]esidence and citizenship are not synonymous and it is [citizenship] that matters for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction."
Despite defendants alleging residency and not citizenship in the notice of removal, the Court finds that Coron's deposition testimony, the fact that plaintiffs do not dispute that Coron is a citizen of New York, and the fact that defendants argue that Coron is a citizen of New York in their response to plaintiffs' motion to remand, sufficiently establish Coron's citizenship. See Chi. Stadium Corp. v. Ind., 220 F.2d 797, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1955) (noting that factual allegations of citizenship must be made in the pleadings, demonstrating complete diversity); Tylka v. Gerber Products Co., 211 F.3d 445, 448 (7th Cir. 2000) ("[Allegations of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.") (citing Guaranty Nat'l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) ("When parties allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.")). On May 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand (Doc. 9), a memorandum in support thereof (Doc. 10), and a motion to expedite briefing (Doc. 11) so that plaintiff's motion to remand would be ripe for decision prior to the Panel's May 29, 2012, briefing deadline related to the CTO.
Factual allegations of citizenship must be made in the pleadings, demonstrating complete diversity. See Chi. Stadium Corp. v. State of Ind., 220 F.2d 797, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1955) (emphasis added). Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(c), for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state where its principle place of business is located.
Factual allegations of citizenship must be made in the pleadings, demonstrating complete diversity. See Chi. Stadium Corp. v. State of Ind., 220 F.2d 797, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1955) (emphasis added). In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that diversity is present as "[p]laintiff lives in Illinois and [d]efendant Dr. Wagih A. Satar lives in Princeton, Indiana."
Factual allegations of citizenship must be made in the pleadings, demonstrating complete diversity. See Chi. Stadium Corp. v. Ind., 220 F.2d 797, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1955). "[A]llegations of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction."