Hundley v. MidAmerica Hotels Corporation

E.D. Missouri

Hundley v. MidAmerica Hotels Corporation

DecidedMay 10, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00082

StatusUnknown

This text of Hundley v. MidAmerica Hotels Corporation (Hundley v. MidAmerica Hotels Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hundley v. MidAmerica Hotels Corporation, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

DAVID HUNDLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-82-ACL ) MIDAMERICA HOTELS CORP., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Eighth Circuit has admonished district courts to “be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). “In every federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to the merits of other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 2006). “A plaintiff who seeks to invoke diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts must plead citizenship distinctly and affirmatively.” 15 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31 (3d ed. 2010). The Complaint in this case asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the lawsuit is between citizens of different States and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. However, plaintiff alleges that he is “an individual residing in Jonesboro, Arkansas.” [Doc. 1 at ¶ 1.] The complaint does not appear to allege plaintiff’s citizenship. Alleging residence is insufficient for purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. See Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by May 24, 2024, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in accordance with this memorandum. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this order, this matter will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending further order of this Court. Dated this 10th day of May, 2024. /s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni_______________ ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

DAVID HUNDLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-82-ACL ) MIDAMERICA HOTELS CORP., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Eighth Circuit has admonished district courts to “be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). “In every federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to the merits of other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 2006). “A plaintiff who seeks to invoke diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts must plead citizenship distinctly and affirmatively.” 15 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 102.31 (3d ed. 2010). The Complaint in this case asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the lawsuit is between citizens of different States and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. However, plaintiff alleges that he is “an individual residing in Jonesboro, Arkansas.” [Doc. 1 at ¶ 1.] The complaint does not appear to allege plaintiff’s citizenship. Alleging residence is insufficient for purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. See Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by May 24, 2024, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in accordance with this memorandum. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this order, this matter will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending further order of this Court. Dated this 10th day of May, 2024. /s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni_______________ ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hundley v. MidAmerica Hotels Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hundley-v-midamerica-hotels-corporation-moed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack