Peet v. Stewart

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: May 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00053
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

GREGORY ALLEN PEET, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Case No. 1:25-cv-00053-SNLJ ) ROGER ALLAN STEWART, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on two motions filed by plaintiff regarding Amended Disclosure Statements filed by defendants Haulers Insurance Company, Inc. and Todd Worley. [Docs. 51, 52]. Plaintiff contends that differences in the original Disclosure Statements and the Amended Disclosure Statements may have an effect on jurisdiction and liability; and he suggests there is a nefarious reason behind the filing of the Amended Disclosure Statements. [Id.]. He seeks the following relief from the Court: 1) Clarify the basis for defendants’ amendments and assess whether the original filings were deficient or misleading.

2) Determine whether Haulers’ amended disclosure impacts diversity jurisdiction, given the inclusion of Tennessee as its primary place of business.

3) Confirm Haulers’ liability, ensuring it cannot evade responsibility for Worley’s actions performed in his employment.

4) Review the timing and intent behind defendants’ amendments to determine whether they were strategically altered to manipulate jurisdiction or liability.

5) Clarify the proper corporate citizenship of Haulers, ensuring that its primary business location does not improperly affect jurisdiction. 6) Confirm Hauler’s liability for Worley’s actions within his employment, preventing any unjust separation of accountability.

The Amended Disclosure Statements were filed after the Court issued a Notice instructing the parties that Local Rule 2.09 requires individual parties to disclose their state of citizenship (not residence or domicile), and corporations to disclose their state of incorporation and principal place of business. [Doc. 48]. The original Disclosure Statements did not comply with Local Rule 2.09 because Worley states he is domiciled in Tennessee and Haulers states it is domiciled in Missouri. [Docs. 45, 46]. The Amended Disclosure Statements provide the information required by Local Rule 2.09. [Doc. 49, 50]. Specifically, Worley states he is a citizen of Tennessee, and Haulers states it is a Missouri corporation with its primary business practice in Tennessee. [Id.].

This Court reviews disclosure statements to determine recusal and jurisdictional issues. See E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.09(A). The only difference in the information contained in the Amended Disclosure Statements relevant to jurisdiction is that Haulers is considered a citizen of both Missouri and Tennessee. [Docs. 45, 50]. Worley’s citizenship in Tennessee remains the same. [Docs. 46, 49]. Plaintiff is a citizen of Kentucky [Doc. 23],

and the other defendants are citizens of Missouri [Docs. 41, 43, 44]. Accordingly, the Amended Disclosure Statements have no effect on diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1332(a). See OnePoint Sols., LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Complete diversity of citizenship exists where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.”). Finally, Plaintiff's request for the Court to investigate matters related to the Amended Disclosure Statements other than recusal and jurisdiction issues is improper and is denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification Regarding Defendants Haulers Insurance Company, Inc. and Todd Worley’s Amended Disclosure of Corporate Interests Certificates [Doc. 51] and Plaintiff's Motion to Contest Defendants Haulers Insurance Company, Inc. and Todd Worley’s Amended Disclosure of Corporate Interests Certificates [Doc. 52] are DENIED. SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2025.

fo - “I 4 fh STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. * SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE