Miguel A. Alaniz v. Dean M. Sutherland and Schneider National Carriers, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MIGUEL A. ALANIZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 26-339 JPG DEAN M. SUTHERLAND and SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., 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. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) (noting courts’ “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it”). The Court has noted the following defect in the jurisdictional allegations of the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) filed by defendant. • 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. Notice of Removal alleges residence but not citizenship of Dean M. Sutherland.

The Court hereby ORDERS Defendants shall have up to and including April 10, 2026 to amend the faulty pleading to correct the jurisdictional defects. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Failure to cure the noted defect will result in remand of this case for lack of subject subject matter jurisdiction will satisfy this order. Defendant is 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: 3/27/2026 s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE