Wright-Williams v. Crawford

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: April 29, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00134
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

BRENDA WRIGHT-WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:22-cv-134-MTS ) NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The Court finds that Defendant Nationwide Insurance Company of America has failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 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.”); Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 745 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting “party seeking removal has the burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction”). Defendant removed this action from the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri claiming that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Doc. [1] ¶ 10; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (allowing removal of any civil action over which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction). In order for the Court to have diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1), besides the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, Plaintiff must be completely diverse from the Defendants in such a way that Plaintiff is a not a citizen of the same states as Defendants. Wilkerson v. Mo. Dep’t of Mental Health, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1080 (E.D. Mo. 2003). For a removing Defendant to properly show diversity, the parties must be diverse “both when the plaintiff initiate[d] the action in state court and when the defendant file[d] the notice of removal in federal court.” Chavez- Lavagnino v. Motivation Educ. Training, Inc., 714 F.3d 1055, 1056 (8th Cir. 2013); accord Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding removal defective because defendant’s notice failed to specify party’s citizenship “when the suit was commenced”). While Defendant alleged the citizenship of the parties at the time of removal, Defendant provided no allegations of the parties’ citizenship when Plaintiff filed her action in State court, which is indispensable to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case. If Defendant can establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant must file an Amended Notice of Removal to fix the jurisdictional defects the Court has identified herein. See City of St. Louis v. Bindan Corp., 295 F.R.D. 392, 395 (E.D. Mo. 2013). Failure to do so will result in remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final 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 Amended Notice of Removal no later than Friday, May 6, 2022. Dated this 29th day of April, 2022. (f / | io iy UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-