Kokenge v. James River Insurance Company

E.D. Missouri

Kokenge v. James River Insurance Company

DecidedApril 6, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-00335

StatusUnknown

This text of Kokenge v. James River Insurance Company (Kokenge v. James River Insurance Company) 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

Kokenge v. James River Insurance Company, (E.D. Mo. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN KOKENGE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-00335-MTS ) JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Court notes that Defendant’s Notice of Removal, Doc. [1], has failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.1 Compare Doc. [1] ¶ 9, with Hargett v. RevClaims, LLC, 854 F.3d 962, 965 (8th Cir. 2017) (“A complaint or notice of removal resting on residency . . . will not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. This rule is not new.” (internal citation omitted)), and Reece v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777–78 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Because of this ambiguity in the word ‘resident’—as compared to ‘citizen’ and the unambiguous ‘reside’—we cannot satisfy ourselves that diversity jurisdiction is proper based solely on an allegation a party is (or was) a ‘resident’ of a particular state.”). If Defendant can establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant must file an Amendment by Interlineation to its Notice of Removal to address the jurisdictional defect the Court has identified herein. See City of St. Louis v. Bindan Corp., 295 F.R.D. 392, 395 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (discussing the circumstances under which a party may amend a notice of removal). Failure to do so will result in remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final

1 See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall file an Amendment by Interlineation to its Notice of Removal no later than April 13, 2023. Dated this 6th day of April 2023. he T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN KOKENGE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-00335-MTS ) JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Court notes that Defendant’s Notice of Removal, Doc. [1], has failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.1 Compare Doc. [1] ¶ 9, with Hargett v. RevClaims, LLC, 854 F.3d 962, 965 (8th Cir. 2017) (“A complaint or notice of removal resting on residency . . . will not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. This rule is not new.” (internal citation omitted)), and Reece v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777–78 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Because of this ambiguity in the word ‘resident’—as compared to ‘citizen’ and the unambiguous ‘reside’—we cannot satisfy ourselves that diversity jurisdiction is proper based solely on an allegation a party is (or was) a ‘resident’ of a particular state.”). If Defendant can establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant must file an Amendment by Interlineation to its Notice of Removal to address the jurisdictional defect the Court has identified herein. See City of St. Louis v. Bindan Corp., 295 F.R.D. 392, 395 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (discussing the circumstances under which a party may amend a notice of removal). Failure to do so will result in remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final

1 See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall file an Amendment by Interlineation to its Notice of Removal no later than April 13, 2023. Dated this 6th day of April 2023. he T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kokenge v. James River Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kokenge-v-james-river-insurance-company-moed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack