COLTRANE v. MIDWEST COAST LOGISTICS, INC., 12 C 4955. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20120627a91
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. Vander Coltrane ("Coltrane") has sued Midwest Coast Logistics, Inc. ("Midwest") and Abdi Farah ("Farah"), invoking diversity jurisdiction over a dispute stemming from a vehicular collision on an interstate highway in Missouri (although Complaint 4 identifies Coltrane as a resident of Columbia, Missouri, this Court assumes that he is a Missouri citizen as well). 1 It is clear that this action has nothing to do with Illinois except for
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. Vander Coltrane ("Coltrane") has sued Midwest Coast Logistics, Inc. ("Midwest") and Abdi Farah ("Farah"), invoking diversity jurisdiction over a dispute stemming from a vehicular collision on an interstate highway in Missouri (although Complaint 4 identifies Coltrane as a resident of Columbia, Missouri, this Court assumes that he is a Missouri citizen as well). 1 It is clear that this action has nothing to do with Illinois except for ..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
Vander Coltrane ("Coltrane") has sued Midwest Coast Logistics, Inc. ("Midwest") and Abdi Farah ("Farah"), invoking diversity jurisdiction over a dispute stemming from a vehicular collision on an interstate highway in Missouri (although Complaint ¶4 identifies Coltrane as a resident of Columbia, Missouri, this Court assumes that he is a Missouri citizen as well).1 It is clear that this action has nothing to do with Illinois except for Chicago being the asserted principal place of Midwest's business (Complaint ¶3). Indeed, no basis at all appears for exercising personal jurisdiction over Farah, who is identified as an Ohio citizen in Complaint ¶2.
What is exceedingly plain is that even if (as may well be the case) the requisite diversity of citizenship exists, 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) makes this judicial district an improper venue for this lawsuit. Coltrane's attorneys are given until July 13, 2012 to file a statement justifying the filing of this action here, failing which this Court will dismiss both the Complaint and this action (without prejudice, of course, to suit being filed in an appropriate situs elsewhere).
FootNotes
1. Despite the mandate of Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(a)(1), the Complaint is silent as to the grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. For purposes of this memorandum order, this Court has indulged the charitable assumption that the case sounds in diversity. Even that premise may be overly charitable, however, for as if to underscore the seeming unfamiliarity of Coltrane's counsel (a law firm officing in Corpus Christi, Texas) with federal practice, the ad damnum seeks "an amount in excess of $50,000 plus costs of suit," although the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction is of course $75,000-plus.
Source: Leagle
