Opinion
24-cv-12441
10-17-2024
DEENA WEISBERG, Plaintiff, v. CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION
MARK A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant Chubb Insurance Company's notice of removal (Dkt. 1). The notice of removal states that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See Notice of Removal ¶ 4. Under the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have jurisdiction over matters in which there is “complete diversity such that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 355 (6th Cir. 2010). In a diversity case, the party asserting jurisdiction-in this case, Defendant-bears the burden of establishing it. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010).
Defendant states that Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan. As to its own citizenship, Defendant states that it is “domiciled in Indiana with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.” Notice of Removal ¶ 6. But domicile is not the relevant test for a corporation. A corporation is a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Defendant did not specify the states by which it has been incorporated. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action based on diversity of citizenship.
Defendant is ordered to file a memorandum within 10 days of the date of entry of this order setting forth proper jurisdictional allegations. If Defendant believes that the current allegations are sufficient, it must file a memorandum explaining its position within the same 10-day period. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.