Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge. On December 16, 2014, this Court issued the following Order: "Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge's first duty in every case." Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691 , 693 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corpor
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge. On December 16, 2014, this Court issued the following Order: "Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge's first duty in every case." Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691 , 693 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corpora..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
On December 16, 2014, this Court issued the following Order:
"Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge's first duty in every case." Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that by December 30, 2014, Defendant shall file a supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 30 days of the notice of removal, Plaintiff may move to remand because a resident defendant cannot remove a case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) ("A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.").
Doc. 9. On December 17, 2014, Defendant filed a supplement to the notice of removal stating that Plaintiff chose to waive his right to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Defendant failed to address or cure the deficiencies to the allegation of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall file a second supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction by February 25, 2015 or this case will be remanded to state court.
