Harold Speed v. Kia America, Inc. and Tim Walker

E.D. Wisconsin

Harold Speed v. Kia America, Inc. and Tim Walker

DecidedNovember 18, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00297

StatusUnknown

This text of Harold Speed v. Kia America, Inc. and Tim Walker (Harold Speed v. Kia America, Inc. and Tim Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold Speed v. Kia America, Inc. and Tim Walker, (E.D. Wis. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

HAROLD SPEED,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-CV-297-JPS v.

KIA AMERICA, INC. and ORDER TIM WALKER,

Defendants.

1. INTRODUCTION In February 2025, Plaintiff Harold Speed (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Tim Walker (“Walker”) and Kia America, Inc. (“Kia”) for defamation and intentional interference with a professional relationship. ECF No. 1. In August 2025, Walker brought a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, ECF No. 5, for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 26. That motion is now fully briefed. ECF Nos. 27, 31, and 36. The Court, however, will deny the motion without prejudice at this juncture given Plaintiff’s failure to properly plead diversity jurisdiction in the operative complaint.1 2. STANDARD Courts have an “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S.

1As to Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions, ECF No. 38, the briefing schedule for that will be stayed pending the filing of a second amended complaint correcting the defects identified below. 500, 514 (2006)). Federal courts “must make their own inquiry to ensure that all statutory requirements are met before exercising jurisdiction.” Page v. Dem. Nat'l Comm., 2 F.4th 630, 634 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453 (1900)). 3. ANALYSIS The Court has noted the following jurisdictional defects in the allegations of the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5, filed by Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has failed to properly allege Kia’s citizenship. The citizenship of a business entity depends on the nature of its organization. A corporation is “a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). In this case, Plaintiff has only identified that Kia’s “principal offices” are in California and that it “is domiciled in California.” ECF No. 5 at 5–6. This level of pleading is insufficient since domicile is not synonymous with the state of incorporation. Ind. Farm Bureau Ins. v. Gree USA Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116151, at *2–3 (N.D. Ind. July 12, 2019) (citing Wojan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 851 F.2d 969, 974–75 (7th Cir. 1998) and Karazanos v. Madison Two Assocs., 147 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir. 1998)). Both must be pled even where the state of incorporation and the state of the principal place of business are one and the same. Karazanos, 147 F.3d 624 at 628. Second, because Plaintiff has failed to allege Kia’s state of incorporation, Plaintiff has failed to allege complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that “no party on the plaintiff's side of the suit shares citizenship with any party on the defendant's side.” Page, 2 F.4th at 636 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806)). Here, no such allegation has been made, nor could it be given the incomplete pleading as to Kia. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to address these deficiencies. If Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by December 2, 2025, or if his second amended complaint fails to cure these deficiencies, his case will be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Tim Walker’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, ECF No. 26, be and the same is hereby DENIED without prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the briefing as to Plaintiff Harold Speed’s motion to withdraw admissions, ECF No. 38, be and the same is hereby STAYED pending the filing of a second amended complaint; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Harold Speed shall FILE a second amended complaint on or before December 2, 2025, curing the deficiencies with respect to jurisdiction. Failure to timely or satisfactorily do so may result in dismissal without prejudice of this action. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of November, 2025. BY THEQOURT: \\ NY Se eR AV teat J.P. Staaf ueller U.S\ District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

HAROLD SPEED,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-CV-297-JPS v.

KIA AMERICA, INC. and ORDER TIM WALKER,

Defendants.

1. INTRODUCTION In February 2025, Plaintiff Harold Speed (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Tim Walker (“Walker”) and Kia America, Inc. (“Kia”) for defamation and intentional interference with a professional relationship. ECF No. 1. In August 2025, Walker brought a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, ECF No. 5, for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 26. That motion is now fully briefed. ECF Nos. 27, 31, and 36. The Court, however, will deny the motion without prejudice at this juncture given Plaintiff’s failure to properly plead diversity jurisdiction in the operative complaint.1 2. STANDARD Courts have an “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S.

1As to Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions, ECF No. 38, the briefing schedule for that will be stayed pending the filing of a second amended complaint correcting the defects identified below. 500, 514 (2006)). Federal courts “must make their own inquiry to ensure that all statutory requirements are met before exercising jurisdiction.” Page v. Dem. Nat'l Comm., 2 F.4th 630, 634 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453 (1900)). 3. ANALYSIS The Court has noted the following jurisdictional defects in the allegations of the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5, filed by Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has failed to properly allege Kia’s citizenship. The citizenship of a business entity depends on the nature of its organization. A corporation is “a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). In this case, Plaintiff has only identified that Kia’s “principal offices” are in California and that it “is domiciled in California.” ECF No. 5 at 5–6. This level of pleading is insufficient since domicile is not synonymous with the state of incorporation. Ind. Farm Bureau Ins. v. Gree USA Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116151, at *2–3 (N.D. Ind. July 12, 2019) (citing Wojan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 851 F.2d 969, 974–75 (7th Cir. 1998) and Karazanos v. Madison Two Assocs., 147 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir. 1998)). Both must be pled even where the state of incorporation and the state of the principal place of business are one and the same. Karazanos, 147 F.3d 624 at 628. Second, because Plaintiff has failed to allege Kia’s state of incorporation, Plaintiff has failed to allege complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that “no party on the plaintiff's side of the suit shares citizenship with any party on the defendant's side.” Page, 2 F.4th at 636 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806)). Here, no such allegation has been made, nor could it be given the incomplete pleading as to Kia. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to address these deficiencies. If Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by December 2, 2025, or if his second amended complaint fails to cure these deficiencies, his case will be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Tim Walker’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, ECF No. 26, be and the same is hereby DENIED without prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the briefing as to Plaintiff Harold Speed’s motion to withdraw admissions, ECF No. 38, be and the same is hereby STAYED pending the filing of a second amended complaint; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Harold Speed shall FILE a second amended complaint on or before December 2, 2025, curing the deficiencies with respect to jurisdiction. Failure to timely or satisfactorily do so may result in dismissal without prejudice of this action. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of November, 2025. BY THEQOURT: \\ NY Se eR AV teat J.P. Staaf ueller U.S\ District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harold Speed v. Kia America, Inc. and Tim Walker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-speed-v-kia-america-inc-and-tim-walker-wied-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack