Cordes v. Cooper, MD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JOHN CORDES, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 20-10 JPG/MAB ) AMBER COOPER, M.D., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In light of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals admonitions, see Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court has undertaken a rigorous initial review of pleadings to ensure that jurisdiction has been properly pled. The Court has noted the following defects in the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint (Doc. 1) filed by plaintiffs, John Cordes and Lindsey Cordes: Failure to allege the citizenship of an individual. A complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship of an individual defendant, not merely residence. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998). Allegations of “residence” are jurisdictionally insufficient. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905). Dismissal is appropriate where parties allege residence but not citizenship. Held, 137 F.3d at 1000. Complaint alleges residence but not citizenship of plaintiffs John Cordes and Lindsey Cordes.

Failure to allege the citizenship of each member of an unincorporated association. To determine if complete diversity exists, the Court must examine the citizenship of each member of a limited liability company. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003) (partnerships and limited liability companies are citizens of every state of which any member is a citizen); Indiana Gas Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 314, 316 (7th Cir. 1998). The relevant pleading must affirmatively allege the specific states of citizenship of each member of the limited liability company for Centers for Reproductive Medicine and Wellness, LLC, Vios Fertility Institute Chicago, LLC and Advengenix, LLC.

The Court hereby ORDERS plaintiffs, shall have up to and including, January 27, 2020 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defects. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Failure to amend the faulty pleading may result in dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amendment of the faulty pleading to reflect an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction will satisfy this order. Plaintiffs are directed to consult Local Rule 15.1 regarding amended pleadings and need not seek leave of Court to file such amended pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2020 s/J. Phil Gilbert U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE