HUNTER v. C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 C 10506. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151209c02
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . Last week this Court granted the motion of counsel for defendant C.M. Life Insurance Company ("C.M. Life") for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in this action that was brought against it in the Circuit Court of Cook County and was then removed to this District Court on diversity-of-citizenship grounds. But in the process of setting up its chambers file in the matter, this Court has spotted this mistaken allegation
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . Last week this Court granted the motion of counsel for defendant C.M. Life Insurance Company ("C.M. Life") for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in this action that was brought against it in the Circuit Court of Cook County and was then removed to this District Court on diversity-of-citizenship grounds. But in the process of setting up its chambers file in the matter, this Court has spotted this mistaken allegation ..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
Last week this Court granted the motion of counsel for defendant C.M. Life Insurance Company ("C.M. Life") for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in this action that was brought against it in the Circuit Court of Cook County and was then removed to this District Court on diversity-of-citizenship grounds. But in the process of setting up its chambers file in the matter, this Court has spotted this mistaken allegation in Notice of Removal ¶ 3 that has triggered the issuance of this sua sponte memorandum order:
Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that they are all residents of the state of Illinois. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Illinois for purposes of §1332(a)(1). (Exhibit A).
"Accordingly" is just plain wrong, for the state of a person's residence does not automatically equate to that person's state of citizenship, the latter of course being the relevant fact for diversity purposes. Indeed, our Court of Appeals has frequently voiced the command set out in Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F.3d 858, 861 n.3 (7th Cir. 2004):
When the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the district court must dismiss the suit.
Although this Court has often characterized that mandate as Draconian, it is nonetheless bound by all directions voiced by our Court of Appeals. What it will do in this instance is to defer action on that directive until December 29, 2015 to allow counsel for C.M. Life to correct Notice of Removal ¶ 3, on the premise that by then C.M. Life's counsel will have obtained the necessary information from plaintiffs' counsel to allege the four plaintiffs' respective states of citizenship.
Source: Leagle
