Slater v. Spicknall et al
| William Favre Slater |
| Illinois Institute of Technology, Soren P. Spicknall and Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Midwest Headquarters |
| 1:2019cv07790 |
| November 26, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| P.I.: Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed by the Courtroom Deputy on 12/6/2019. Mailed notice (mw,) |
Filing 8
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/6/2019: On review of the complaint, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed this case and invoked diversity jurisdiction. See R. 2, Civil Cover Sheet. But diversity jurisdiction is missing here because the Plaintiff has failed to allege complete diversity among the parties, and indeed has explicitly alleged a lack of diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a); Howell v. Tribune Entertainment Co., 106 F.3d 215, 217 (7th Cir. 1997) (complete diversity of citizenship means that "none of the parties on either side of the litigation may be a citizen of the state of which a party on the other side is a citizen"). In other words, if the Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois, then none of the Defendants may also be citizens of Illinois. It is true that the complaint is not entirely clear on citizenship because the complaint only alleges the residency and employment of the individual parties and the state of incorporation of the corporate parties, and what matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is citizenship, not residency. Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009). Individual citizenship is based on domicile. Corporate citizenship is based on both the state of incorporation and the principal place of business. In normal circumstances, the Court would ask the Plaintiff to submit a supplemental memorandum specifically identifying the citizenship of each party. But in this case, based on the allegations and the Civil Cover Sheet, the Plaintiff clearly intended to allege his citizenship as Illinois and to allege that at least one of the Defendants (the Illinois Institute of Technology) is also a citizen of Illinois. (Indeed, Defendant Spicknall might also be a citizen of Illinois.) This dismissal is not on the merits; that is, it is without prejudice to refiling the case in state court. A separate AO-450 judgment shall be entered. Status hearing of 01/06/2020 is vacate. If the Plaintiff believes that he can cure the subject matter jurisdiction problem, then he may file a motion to vacate judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (mw,)
|
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang:Initial status hearing set for 01/06/2020 at 9 a.m. The parties must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report requirements at least 3 business days before the initial status hearing. Plaintiff must still file the report even if not all Defendants have been served or have responded to requests to craft a joint report. Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel must read them anew even if counsel has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases.Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (slb, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (jh, ) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Illinois Institute of Technology, Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Midwest Headquarters, Soren P. Spicknall. (jh, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff William Favre Slater. (jh, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (jh, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by William Favre Slater; Jury Demand. (jh, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
