Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-109.
April 4, 2011
OPINION AND ORDER
This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by the Defendant based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Notice of Removal, however, inadequately sets forth the Plaintiff's citizenship.
The Defendant bases its Notice of Removal on the Plaintiff's Complaint, which states that he is a resident of Fort Wayne, Indiana. (Notice of Removal ¶ 7; Complaint ¶ 1.) Accordingly, the Notice of Removal claims that "[u]pon information and belief, [the Plaintiff] is a citizen of the State of Indiana." (Notice of Removal ¶ 7.)
However, the "residency" of a party is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Guar. Nat'l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning a party's "residency" are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 255 F.3d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 2001). "For natural persons, state citizenship is determined by one's domicile." Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Am.'s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) ("In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.").
Furthermore, "[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information and belief, only personal knowledge." Yount v. Shashek, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057 n. 1 (S.D. Ill. 2006). See also Am.'s Best Inns, Inc., 980 F.2d at 1074; Ebersohl v. Bechtel Corp., No. 09-1029-GPM, 2010 WL 785973, at *4 n. 2 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2010); Dintelman v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-945-GPM, 2010 WL 520284, at *2 n. 2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2010).
Therefore, the Defendant is ORDERED to file an amended Notice of Removal forthwith, alleging the Plaintiff's citizenship — that is, his domicile — on personal knowledge.
SO ORDERED.