Willis v. Rose Art Inc et al, No. 3:2007cv00192 - Document 5 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER affording plaintiffs to and including 5/20/2007 in which to file an amended complaint alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 4/30/07. (ksc)

Download PDF
Willis v. Rose Art Inc et al Doc. 5 case 3:07-cv-00192-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 04/30/2007 page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION RENEA WILLIS, an Individual and Guardian of K.W., a Minor, ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) vs. ) ) ROSE ART, INC., MEGABLOKS, INC., ) and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, ) ) Defendants ) CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-192 RM OPINION and ORDER The court has the obligation to inquire into its own subject matter jurisdiction. Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 678 (7th Cir. 2006) (because limits on subject-matter jurisdiction are not waivable or forfeitable . . . federal courts are required to police their jurisdiction ). The plaintiffs complaint does not allege the existence of jurisdiction. First, it alleges that at all times material hereto, [the Plaintiffs] resided in Plymouth, Indiana, but residency is not citizenship, Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998), and jurisdiction depends on citizenship of each party at the time the case begins. Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 216 (7th Cir. 1996). The plaintiffs must show the citizenship of each party as of the date the complaint was filed. Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993). Second, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) provides that a corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business. The complaint alleges that Dockets.Justia.com case 3:07-cv-00192-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 04/30/2007 page 2 of 3 defendant Rose Art, Inc. is believed to be a corporation organized and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, but the complaint contains no allegations relating to the corporation s principal place of business. If Rose Art s principal place of business is located in Indiana, there is no diversity of citizenship. Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., 469 F.3d at 676. Lastly, the complaint alleges that defendants ABC Corporations 1-10, whose true identities are not yet known, are believed to be the parent corporation(s) of Rose Art, Inc. Unidentified John Doe defendants are not permitted in federal diversity suits because diversity jurisdiction must be proved by the plaintiffs rather than assumed as a default. Howell v. Tribune Entertainment Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997) ( the existence of diversity jurisdiction cannot be determined without knowledge of every defendant s place of citizenship ); Moore v. General Motors Pension Plans, 91 F.3d 848, 850 (7th Cir. 1996) ( this court cannot presume that [ABC Corporations] 1-10 are diverse with respect to the plaintiff ). While some exceptions to the John Doe ban exist when John Doe defendants are merely nominal parties, irrelevant to diversity jurisdiction, when naming a John Doe defendant will not defeat the named defendants right to remove a diversity case to federal court, or when a John Doe defendant is named in a suit based on federal question jurisdiction those exceptions don t appear to be applicable here. Howell v. Tribune Entertainment Co., 106 F.3d at 218. Although the case may be subject to dismissal on these grounds, Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2000), the court instead affords the 2 case 3:07-cv-00192-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 04/30/2007 page 3 of 3 plaintiffs twenty days from the date of this order within which to file an amended complaint alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: April 30, 2007 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.