Garnier v. Upchurch

S.D. Illinois

Garnier v. Upchurch

DecidedSeptember 2, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-01649

StatusUnknown

This text of Garnier v. Upchurch (Garnier v. Upchurch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garnier v. Upchurch, (S.D. Ill. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JEREMY GARNIER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 25-1649 JPG ) RYAN UPCHURCH, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In light of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals admonitions, see Foster v. Hill, 497

F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court has undertaken a rigorous initial review of

pleadings to ensure that jurisdiction has been properly pled. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (noting courts’ “independent obligation to determine whether subject- matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it”). The Court has noted the following defects in the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint (Doc. 1) filed

by plaintiff:

• Failure to allege the citizenship of an individual. A complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of an individual defendant, not merely residence. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998). Allegations of “residence” are jurisdictionally insufficient. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905). Dismissal is appropriate where parties allege residence but not citizenship. Held, 137 F.3d at 1000. Complaint alleges residence but not citizenship of plaintiff and defendant.

The Court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff, shall have up to and including, September 26, 2025 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defects. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Failure to amend the faulty pleading may result in dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amendment of the faulty pleading to reflect an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction will satisfy this order. Plaintiffs are directed to consult Local Rule 15.1 regarding amended pleadings and need not seek leave of Court to file such amended pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 9/2/2025

s/J. Phil Gilbert U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JEREMY GARNIER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 25-1649 JPG ) RYAN UPCHURCH, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In light of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals admonitions, see Foster v. Hill, 497

F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court has undertaken a rigorous initial review of

pleadings to ensure that jurisdiction has been properly pled. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (noting courts’ “independent obligation to determine whether subject- matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it”). The Court has noted the following defects in the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint (Doc. 1) filed

by plaintiff:

• Failure to allege the citizenship of an individual. A complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of an individual defendant, not merely residence. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998). Allegations of “residence” are jurisdictionally insufficient. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905). Dismissal is appropriate where parties allege residence but not citizenship. Held, 137 F.3d at 1000. Complaint alleges residence but not citizenship of plaintiff and defendant.

The Court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff, shall have up to and including, September 26, 2025 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defects. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Failure to amend the faulty pleading may result in dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amendment of the faulty pleading to reflect an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction will satisfy this order. Plaintiffs are directed to consult Local Rule 15.1 regarding amended pleadings and need not seek leave of Court to file such amended pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 9/2/2025

s/J. Phil Gilbert U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Garnier v. Upchurch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garnier-v-upchurch-ilsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack