MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.

Upon review of plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. 2), the Court finds that it must raise the issue sua sponte of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See McCready v. White, 417 F.3d 700, 702 (7th Cir. 2005) ("Ensuring the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's first duty in every lawsuit.").

Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 requires complete diversity between the parties plus an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

As to diversity of citizenship, it is well-established that allegations of residency may or may not demonstrate citizenship, as citizenship depends on domicile. See Meyerson v. Harrah's East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, an individual is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled, meaning where he or she has a permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he or she has the intention of returning when absent from it. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs do not adequately allege the citizenship of the individual parties. Additionally, a corporation's citizenship is based on its principal place of business and place of incorporation. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiffs do not adequately allege the citizenship of the corporate defendants.

On the basis of the above, plaintiffs are DIRECTED to brief the jurisdictional basis of their claims on or before July 15, 2013. Specifically, plaintiffs must address the citizenship of each party and demonstrate that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional amount under Section 1332. Plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently demonstrate that subject matter jurisdiction exists will result in the sua sponte dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.