BETTS v. BROWN

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

SHAKYLA BETTS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 1:24-cv-02197-JMS-MG ) ARMOND BROWN, RUAN TRANSPORTATION ) CORPORATION, and PRAXAIR, INC. a/k/a LINDE, ) INC, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Defendants removed Plaintiff's action to this Court on December 12, 2024, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. [Filing No. 1.] Local Rule 81-1 provides: Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal, every plaintiff who has not filed a motion to remand must file a statement responding to the notice of removal’s allegations as to the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy. If the plaintiff lacks sufficient information upon which to form a belief about those allegations despite meeting and conferring in good faith with the removing party about them, the plaintiff may so state.

On January 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand but then withdrew it on February 21, 2025. [Filing No. 12; Filing No. 20.] On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this Court, [Filing No. 25], but has not filed a response to Defendants' Notice of Removal as required by Local Rule 81-1. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to comply with Local Rule 81-1 by May 13, 2025. The Court reminds Plaintiff that an allegation of her residence is inadequate to establish her citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 653 (7th Cir. 1998). Residency and citizenship are not the same, and it is citizenship that matters for purposes of diversity. Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). An individual's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction "is the place one intends to remain." Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002).

Date: 4/28/2025 : Hon. Jane Magnhus-Stinson, Judge ‘United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF to all counsel of record