Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Dennis M Danzik, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Hembd , Wilenchik & Bartness PC.
Dennis M Danzik, Plaintiff, represented by David Andrew Timchak , Wilenchik & Bartness PC & Dennis Ira Wilenchik , Wilenchik & Bartness PC.
RDX Technologies Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Hembd , Wilenchik & Bartness PC, David Andrew Timchak , Wilenchik & Bartness PC & Dennis Ira Wilenchik , Wilenchik & Bartness PC.
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
"Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge's first duty in every case." Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003).
In this case, the complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, the complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether there is jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Insurance Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116-1118 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding to the district court to conduct proceedings and consider evidence as necessary to determine subject matter jurisdiction).
First, the complaint fails to allege the principal place of business of Plaintiff corporation RDX Technologies.1 Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation). Second, the complaint fails to allege the names and citizenship of each partner of Defendant CWT Canada II Limited Partnership. Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990) (discussing the citizenship of limited partnerships).2 Third, the complaint fails to allege the citizenship of all partners in Defendant Changing World Technologies, LP.3 Fourth, no allegation of citizenship of any kind is made for the following individual Defendants: 1) Jean Noelting; 2) Jane Doe Noelting; 3) Bruce MacFarlane; 4) Jane Doe MacFarlane; 5) Brian Appel; and 6) Jane Doe Appel. See generally Kanter, 265 F.3d 857-58. Fifth, the complaint makes no showing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. See generally Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1116-1118. Sixth, diversity jurisdiction will not exist if both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are foreign, which appears to be true in this case. See Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994).
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a supplement to the complaint by June 16, 2017 properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.