JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court must continuously police its subject matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002). The Court must dismiss this action if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Currently, the Court is unable to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation.
Defendant R & B Plastics Machinery, LLC ("R & B Plastics") invoked this Court's subject matter jurisdiction via diversity jurisdiction by filing a Notice of Removal to federal court. As the party seeking federal jurisdiction, Defendant R & B Plastics has the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Smart v. Local 702 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009).
For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff Polycon Industries Inc. and Defendants, R & B Plastics and Monroe Mold, LLC ("Monroe Mold"), must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000. Defendant R & B Plastics has alleged a sufficient amount in controversy. Defendant R & B Plastics has also sufficiently alleged the citizenship of Plaintiff. However, the allegations are insufficient as to the citizenship of Defendants.
The Notice of Removal alleges that the sole member of Defendant R & B Plastics is R & B Holding Company LLC. (Notice of Removal ¶ 17, ECF No. 1). The Notice of Removal further alleges that the members of R & B Holding Company LLC are as follows:
Id. Finally, the Notice of Removal alleges that the members of Defendant Monroe Mold are as follows:
Id. at ¶ 18. These allegations are insufficient for the purpose of determining citizenship.
"The citizenship of a natural person for diversity purposes is determined of course by the person's domicile . . ., which means the state where the person is physically present with an intent to remain there indefinitely." Lyerla v. Amco Ins. Co., 461 F.Supp.2d 834, 835 (S.D. Ill. 2006). Allegations of residency in a state are not sufficient. See id. (diversity jurisdiction "is determined by citizenship of a state, not allegations of residency in a state").
Given the importance of determining the Court's jurisdiction to hear this case, Defendant R & B Plastics must sufficiently allege its own citizenship and that of Defendant Monroe Mold, as outlined above. Specifically, Defendant R & B Plastics must allege the state of citizenship of the natural persons listed above, not the state of residence. Therefore, the Court
So ORDERED.