SNICKERISSIMO!! Judge Blanche Manning has just joined my Judicial Pantheon. Right up there with Sam Kent!
ORDER
Plaintiff Jay Marvin has filed a complaint aginst Janice Shell / aka JANICE456, John Doe I / aka SCION, and John Doe II / aka SALMESHEXNY, invoking diversity of citizenship grounds. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. This matter is before the court as Ms. Shell has filed a motion to extend time to answer or otherwise plead. The court notes that the plaintiff appears not to have provided the court with a courtesy copy of its complaint, as the court is seeing this case for the first time today. While clerical error is a possibility, the court reminds all parties to ensure that the court receives a courtesy copy of each and every filing.
With that said, the court turns to the merits. It has reviewed the jursisdictional allegations in the complaint pursuant to Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters, 781 F.2nd 1280 (7th Cir. 1986) (“the first thing a federal judge should do when a complaint is filed is check to see that federal jurisdiction is properly alleged”). The plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of Illinois and that defendant Janice Shell is a citizen of Pennsylvania. So far, so good. See Guaranty National Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Associates, 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (citizenship, not residency, is what matters for diveristy jurisdiction so “[w]hen the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit”). He also alleges, upon information and belief, that defendants John Doe I / aka SCION and John Doe II / aka SALMESHEXNY are not citizens of Illinois or Pennsylvania.
The allegations as to the John Doe defendants are not enough to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists. First, allegations of citizenship that are made “upon information and belief” are insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which imposes a duty of reasonable pre-complaint inquiry on the plaintiff. Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992), citing Bankers Trust Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 959 F.2d 677, 683 (7th Cir. 1992). Second, the record must affirmatively establish the citizenship of every party, so a complaint must specify the identiy and citizenship of each party. See Guaranty National Title Co. v. J.E.G. Associates, 101 F.3d at 59. Hence, “unknown defendants (who are necessarily of unknown citizenship) foreclose any possible allegation of total diversity.” Bryant v. Yellow Freight Systems, 989 F. Supp. 966, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1997); see also Wild v. Subscrption Plus, Inc., No. 01-3406, F.3 (7th Cir. May 31, 2002) (“how can the plaintiffs know that the company’s principal place of business is not in Lousiana if they don’t know where its principal place of business is? We doubt that the plaintiffs conducted a census of all businesses whose principal place of business is in Louisiana and discovered that the plaintiff is not one of them”).
Therefore, the court finds that the allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction are insufficient. Accordingly, the court dismisses the complaint, sua sponte, without prejudice. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, consistent with this order and Rule 11, by no later than July 1, 2002. this means that Ms. Shell’s motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead is stricken as moot. |
