Opinion
Case No: 14 C 50107
05-23-2014
Harry Schrodt, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant.
Judge Frederick J. Kapala
ORDER
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint containing adequate jurisdictional allegations on or before 6/6/2014 or this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff, Harry Schrodt, has filed a lawsuit in this court against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The case comes before the court for jurisdictional review as "[i]t is the responsibility of a court to make an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case." Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002) ("Jurisdiction is the power to declare law, and without it the federal courts cannot proceed. Accordingly, not only may the federal courts police subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, they must."). Plaintiff attempts to invoke this court's diversity of citizenship subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but has failed. Plaintiff alleges that he is a "resident" of Illinois but residence and citizenship are not synonymous and citizenship is what matters for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See Meyerson v. Harrah's E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). Additionally, corporations are citizens of both the state of their incorporation and the state that is their principal place of business for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff fails to allege defendant's principle place of business. "Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Consequently, plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint including sufficient allegations of diversity of citizenship invoking this court's subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ENTER:
__________
FREDERICK J. KAPALA
District Judge