Schuetter v. Esker

S.D. Illinois

Schuetter v. Esker

DecidedSeptember 5, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00942

StatusUnknown

This text of Schuetter v. Esker (Schuetter v. Esker) 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

Schuetter v. Esker, (S.D. Ill. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SHIRLEY SCHUETTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 19-cv-942-JPG-RJD

GAIL ESKER and KOHL’S, INC.,

Defendants.

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 defect in the jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) filed by defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (misnamed in the complaint as Kohl’s, Inc.): • Failure to allege complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that none of the opposing parties be citizens of the same state. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806). Defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. has failed to allege the citizenship of defendant Gail Esker. Although plaintiff Shirley Schuetter has alleged Esker’s residence in the complaint, allegations of residence are not sufficient to plead citizenship. Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998). Without knowing Esker’s specific state of citizenship, the Court cannot find that complete diversity exists.

The Court hereby ORDERS defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. to SHOW CAUSE on or before September 20, 2019, why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond to this order may result in remand 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. Defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. is 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: September 5, 2019

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SHIRLEY SCHUETTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 19-cv-942-JPG-RJD

GAIL ESKER and KOHL’S, INC.,

Defendants.

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 defect in the jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) filed by defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (misnamed in the complaint as Kohl’s, Inc.): • Failure to allege complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires that none of the opposing parties be citizens of the same state. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806). Defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. has failed to allege the citizenship of defendant Gail Esker. Although plaintiff Shirley Schuetter has alleged Esker’s residence in the complaint, allegations of residence are not sufficient to plead citizenship. Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998). Without knowing Esker’s specific state of citizenship, the Court cannot find that complete diversity exists.

The Court hereby ORDERS defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. to SHOW CAUSE on or before September 20, 2019, why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond to this order may result in remand 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. Defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. is 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: September 5, 2019

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schuetter v. Esker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuetter-v-esker-ilsd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack