Terrell v. Transamerica Bank
| Helen Terrell |
| Transamerica Bank |
| 1:2022cv03548 |
| July 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed by the courtroom deputy on 08/25/2022. Emailed notice (mw, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the absence of response to the jurisdictional inquiry, R. 8, the case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate AO-450 shall be entered. The tracking status hearing of 08/26/2022 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (mw, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Court has reviewed the complaint, R. 1, and issues the following jurisdictional inquiry. Although the complaint does not say, Plaintiff Helen Terrell presumably relies on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332, for subject matter jurisdiction (because no federal-law question appears to be implicated). But for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction, the citizenship of parties and an amount-in-controversy exceeding $75,000 is what matters. Page v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 2 F.4th 630, 634-35 (7th Cir. 2021). The complaint does not properly allege her citizenship nor the citizenship of the Defendant. Individuals are citizens of the state in which they are domiciled. Id. at 634. In contrast, "when it comes to corporations, a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state in which it maintains its 'principal place of business.'" Id.; see 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1). After properly alleging the parties' citizenship, the Plaintiff also must "allege that the controversy entails a dispute over more than $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs." Page, 2 F.4th at 634; see 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). The current complaint does not do so. The Plaintiff shall either amend the complaint by 08/15/2022 with the necessary allegations (if she can do so in good faith) or file a memorandum by that date explaining why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For now, the motion 5 for attorney representation denied without prejudice because (1) the Plaintiff has not contacted other lawyers to seek representation, including free (or "pro bono") representation, R. 5, section 1; and (2) this case is at its initial stages and the Plaintiff, who has a post-graduate education, R. 5, section 5, should be able to handle the initial inquiry. To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a tracking status hearing is set for 08/26/2022 at 8:30 a.m. Also, the motion #4 to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice. The motion states that the Plaintiff does not have any assets, such as an automobile, see R. 4, section 5 Other assets. Yet the complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has a paid-off motorcycle. That asset should have been listed with an estimated value. On or before 08/15/2022, the Plaintiff either must pay the filing fee of $402 or must file an amended in forma pauperis application with that information (as well as current information as of the date of filing). Mailed notice (mw, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Helen Terrell for attorney representation. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Helen Terrell for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Helen Terrell. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 0 copies by Helen Terrell. (nsf, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (nsf, ) |
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
| Search for this case: Terrell v. Transamerica Bank | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Helen Terrell | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Transamerica Bank | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
