UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

SHANE MOSIER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-83

)

FORGE INDUSTRIAL STAFFING, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendant based

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Notice of Removal

alleges that “[o]n information and belief, and based upon the allegations in the Complaint,

[Plaintiff Shane] Mosier is a resident of the State of Indiana.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 4.)

Defendant’s Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate for two reasons. First, it is wellsettled that “[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of

information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, No. Civ. 06-753-GPM,

2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of

Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg.,

LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro

Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003); Multi-M

Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Consequently,

Defendant must amend its Notice of Removal to allege the Plaintiff’s citizenship on personal

knowledge rather than on information and belief. 

1

case 1:13-cv-00083-PPS-RBC document 7 filed 04/02/13 page 1 of 2
The Notice of Removal is also insufficient because the “residency” of each party is

meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as “citizenship is what matters.” Guar. Nat’l

Title Co. 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); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “It is well-settled that when the parties allege residence

but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.” Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir.

1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see generally Smoot v. Mazda Motors of

Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Court must be advised of

Plaintiff Shane Mosier’s citizenship, rather than his residency, which “[f]or natural persons . . . is

determined by one’s domicile.” Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see 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.”); Am.’s Best Inns, Inc., 980 F.2d at 1074 (“In federal law

citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). 

Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended

Notice of Removal on or before April 16, 2013, properly alleging on personal knowledge the

citizenship of Plaintiff Shane Mosier.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 2nd day of April, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2

case 1:13-cv-00083-PPS-RBC document 7 filed 04/02/13 page 2 of 2