Starks v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DARLENE STARKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:22-cv-00752-SEP ) THE STANDARD FIRE INSRUANCE ) COMPANY, et al., ) ) Defendants. MEM ORAND U )M AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Doc. 23. In the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she “is a lawful resident of the State id. of Missouri,” Doc. 23 ¶ 1; that Defendant The Standard Fire Insurance Company “is organized id. under the laws of the state of Missouri,” ¶ 2; that Defendant Luis Viveros “is an agent of [1] The Standard,” ¶ 6; and that Defendant Melvin Cooper “is a resident of the State of [2] Missouri.” Doc. 23 ¶ 9. None of those allegations establishes any of the parties’ citizenship. See Blakemore v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. An individual is a citizen of the state in which she is physically present and intends to remain indefinitely. , 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir. Reece v. Bank of New York Mellon 1986). “When it comes to diversity jurisdiction, the words ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ are not Dubach v. Weitzel interchangeable.” , 760 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Hargett v. RevClaims, LLC , 135 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir.1998)). “Citizenship requires permanence.” Id. , 854 F.3d 962, 965 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Residency is a more fluid concept.” (citation omitted). While “[o]ne could, for 1 Plaintiff seeks to file the amended complaint primarily to add Cooper as a new deS fee ne dant. [2] The original complaint also failed to allege the citizenship of any of thsee ep arties. Doc. 8 ¶¶ 1-8. Because this action was removedS fereo mDa srtta Cteh ceoroukret eb By aDseinfe Onpdearnattsi—onw Choo., pLrLoCp ve. rOlyw aelnlesged each party’s citizenship, without challenge from Plaintiff, in their Notice of Removal, Doc. 1 ¶ 3—the Court did not raise this issue at that time. , 574 U.S. 81 , 87 (2014) ( 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (a) tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) and, unless challenged by the plaintiff, reqSueier es only that a defendant provide a short and plain statement identifying the grounds for removal). In her Motion to Remand, Plaintiff challenged only the amount example, be a resident of multiple states,” “one may be a citizen of just one state.” /d. (citation omitted). “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State... by which it has been incorporated and of the State ... where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will hold Plaintiff's motion, Doc. 23, in abeyance, and grant Plaintiff seven (7) days to substitute a new proposed amended complaint that properly alleges the citizenship of all parties to the lawsuit. Dated this 26% day of September, 2022. _ Chuck LY □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE