Moss v. Doering Kennels, Inc., et al
| JoAnne Moss and Richard L Moss |
| Greg Mueller, Julian Ramon, Jill Doering, Doering Kennels, Inc., Ron Doering and Millennium Outdoors, LLC |
| 3:2018cv01784 |
| October 3, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Reona J Daly |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 10, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs.(Casey, Matthew) |
| Set Deadline: Amended Pleadings due by 10/30/2018. (dmw2) |
Filing 4
JURISDICTIONAL ORDER: This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007) ("It is the responsibility of a court to make an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case."). The complaint indicates that this Court has original jurisdiction over the action based on diversity of citizenship (Doc. 1). However, the allegations regarding the citizenship of Plaintiffs and Defendants Ron Doering, Jill Doering, Julian Ramon, and Greg Mueller are insufficient to establish that the parties are completely diverse. The complaint alleges the residency of these parties, but "residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction." Meyerson v. Harrah's E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). The citizenship of a natural person for diversity purposes is determined by the person's domicile, which means the state where the person is physically present with an intent to remain there indefinitely. See Pollution Control Indus. of Am., Inc. v. Van Gundy, 21 F.3d 152, 155 n.4 (7th Cir. 1994), Perry v. Pogemiller, 16 F.3d 138, 140 (7th Cir. 1993); Cassens v. Cassens, 430 F. Supp. 2d 830, 833 (S.D. Ill. 2006). Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an amended complaint, on or before October 30, 2018, that sets forth all of the information needed to determine whether jurisdiction lies in this Court. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in the manner and time prescribed or if, after reviewing it, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be dismissed.. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 10/9/2018. (klh2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ACTION. See Local Rule 83.1(f). In all cases filed in, removed to, or transferred to this court, all attorneys, including government attorneys, shall file a written entry of appearance before addressing the court. Attorney Casey does not have a Notice of Appearance on file in this case. (dmw2) |
| Filing 2 Notice of Judge Assignment. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel and Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly assigned. All future documents must bear case number 18-1784-NJR-RJD. If the parties consent to Magistrate Judge assignment, the consent form with instruction is attached for your convenience. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. (dmw2) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0754-3687179.), filed by JoAnne Moss, Richard L Moss. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Casey, Matthew) |
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 Southern 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.
