STAUFFENBERG v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INTERNATIONAL

Case No. 1:17-cv-00291-TLS-SLC.

ERIK STAUFFENBERG, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Product Liability
Nature of Suit: 365 Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Erik Stauffenberg, Plaintiff, represented by H. Duncan Garnett, Jr. , Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein LC.


OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN COLLINS, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is a complaint filed by Plaintiff Erik Stauffenberg, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop'n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997).

First, Plaintiff begins his complaint, in an unnumbered paragraph, with a statement that he "alleges the following, upon information and belief. . . ." (DE 1 at 1). Because this statement is in the very first sentence of the complaint, Plaintiff is essentially stating that his entire complaint is alleged "upon information and belief." This is a problem because "[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) (citing Am.'s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); see Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003).

Additionally, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Plaintiff "is a resident of the City of Norfolk, Virginia." (DE 1 ¶ 11). Plaintiff's residency is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, however; an individual's citizenship is determined by his or her domicile. See Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 867 (7th Cir. 2012); Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) ("But residence may or may not demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile—that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the long run."); Guar. Nat'l Title Co., Inc. 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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted to and including July 27, 2017, to file an amended complaint that properly alleges federal subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship.

SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases