United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION
CHARLES SHAW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on review of the file.
“Courts have an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]”
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The
requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold
matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial
power of the United States and is inflexible and without
exception.” Kessler v. National Enters., Inc.,
347 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and
quoted case omitted). Statutes conferring diversity
jurisdiction are to be strictly construed, Sheehan v.
Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992), and the
burden of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the party
asserting jurisdiction, here the plaintiff. See McNutt v.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S.
178, 189 (1936).
case, plaintiff's complaint does not allege a basis for
federal jurisdiction, but contains allegations concerning the
parties' places of residence, domicile, and principal
place of business. Complaint at 1, ¶¶ 1,
Plaintiff's complaint asserts only state law causes of
action, so it appears plaintiff is attempting to invoke the
Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs
and defendants is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Buckley v. Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6
(8th Cir. 1991). “Complete diversity of citizenship
exists where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state
where any plaintiff holds citizenship.” OnePoint
Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir.
establish complete diversity of citizenship, a complaint must
include factual allegations of each party's state of
citizenship. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d
214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987); see 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). It is well established that allegations concerning
the parties' residency do not satisfy requirements for
federal diversity jurisdiction. Reece v. Bank of New York
Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2014); Pattiz
v. Schwartz, 386 F.2d 300, 301 (8th Cir. 1968) (citing
cases). “In both common parlance and legal usage,
‘resident' and ‘citizen' have overlapping
but distinct meanings. See, e.g.,
Black's Law Dictionary 1502 (10th ed. 2014)
(explaining ‘a resident is not necessarily either a
citizen or a domiciliary'); New Oxford American
Dictionary 1485 (3d ed. 2010) (defining
‘resident' as ‘a person who lives somewhere
permanently or on a long-term basis' (emphasis
added)).” Reece, 760 F.3d 778.
complaint alleges that plaintiff is a “resident of St.
Louis County, Missouri.” Complaint at 1, ¶ 1. This
allegation is insufficient to establish that plaintiff is a
citizen of Missouri.
complaint alleges that defendant is a “foreign
insurance company” “domiciled in the State of
Indiana, with a principal place of business in Indianapolis,
Indiana.” Complaint at 1, ¶¶ 2-3. For
purposes of determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists
in federal court, a corporation is considered a citizen of
both its state of incorporation and the state of its
principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Plaintiff's allegation that defendant is
“domiciled” in Indiana is not equivalent to an
allegation that defendant is incorporated in Indiana. A
corporate domicile is the “place considered by law as
the center of corporate affairs, where the corporation's
functions are discharged.” Black's Law
Dictionary 501 (7th ed. 1999) (explaining that a
corporate domicile is usually “its state of
incorporation or the state in which it maintains its
principal place of business”) (emphasis
complaint is procedurally defective because it does not
contain sufficient allegations of jurisdictional facts to
establish the existence of diversity of citizenship.
Plaintiff will be required to amend her complaint to correct
this defect, and will be granted five (5) days to do so.
Plaintiff s failure to timely and fully comply with this
Order will result in the dismissal of this case without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by
September 6, 2017, plaintiff shall file an
Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the
citizenship of all parties to this action.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff does not timely
and fully comply with this Order, this matter will be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
 Section II of the Civil Cover
Sheet, “Basis of Jurisdiction, ” was left blank
and therefore also does not indicate a basis of federal
In Section III of the Civil Cover Sheet, “Citizenship
of Principal Parties, ” plaintiff checked a box
indicating that defendant is incorporated in or has its