United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Collins United States Magistrate Judge
Court has an independent obligation to ensure that subject
matter jurisdiction exists in an action before it. See
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006);
Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. Place,
L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003). This Opinion
and Order summarizes the undersigned Magistrate Judge's
inquiry into the basis for the Court's jurisdiction in
Geico Casualty Company filed the complaint in this case on
April 24, 2018, but failed to allege any basis for the
Court's jurisdiction. (See DE 1). “It is well
established that [federal-question jurisdiction] must be
apparent on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded
complaint.” Ne. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v.
Wabash Valley Power Ass'n, Inc., 707 F.3d 883, 890
(7th Cir. 2013), as amended (Apr. 29, 2013) (collecting
cases); see Crosby v. Cooper B-Line, Inc., 725 F.3d
795, 800 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Ordinarily, the basis for
federal-question jurisdiction must be apparent from the face
of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.” (citing
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S.
149, 152 (1908))).
Plaintiff fails to properly allege federal diversity
jurisdiction. As the party seeking to invoke federal
diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of
demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has
been met. Chase v. Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods,
Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Here, Plaintiff
fails to identify in which state it has its principal place
of business. A corporation is considered a citizen of the
state by which it is incorporated and the state where it has
its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1);
N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th
Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the Court must be informed of the
state in which Plaintiff has its principal place of business
to ensure that it does not share citizenship with any of the
the complaint alleges the states in which the individual
decedent Defendants were “located.” (DE ¶
2). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), “the legal
representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to
be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent.”
See Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491-92 (7th Cir.
2009) (observing that the federal diversity statute treats
the legal representative of a decedent's estate as a
citizen of the same state as the decedent); Gustafson v.
Zumbrunnen, 546 F.3d 398, 400-01 (7th Cir. 2008) (same).
Therefore, Plaintiff must inform the Court of the domicile of
the individual decedent Defendants at the time of their
problem with the complaint is that it alleges that the other
individual Defendants were “resident[s]” of
Indiana at “all times relevant in the complaint.”
(DE 1 ¶¶ 3-6). Residency or location are
meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, however;
an individual's citizenship is determined by his or her
domicile. See Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Indus.,
Inc., 691 F.3d 856, 867 (7th Cir. 2012); Heinen v.
Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir.
2012) (“But residence may or may not demonstrate
citizenship, which depends on domicile-that is to say, the
state in which a person intends to live over the long
run.”); Guar. Nat'l Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G.
Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining
that statements concerning a party's
“residency” are not proper allegations of
citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332). Moreover,
for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, each
party's citizenship must be articulated as of “the
time of the filing of the complaint, ” rather than the
date the claims are alleged to have arisen or some other time
material to the lawsuit. Multi-M Int'l, Inc. v. Paige
Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992);
see Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 216 (7th Cir.
Plaintiff is AFFORDED to and including May 10, 2018, to file
an amended complaint properly alleging a basis for the
 The Court notes that in its civil
cover sheet, Plaintiff alleges federal-question jurisdiction
arising under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, but a federal
question is not apparent ...