UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

STACY E. LAKE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 1:14-CV-143

)

WILLIAM E. HEZEBICKS, )

STAN KOCH SONS TRUCKING, and )

STAN KOCH SONS TRUCKING, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

This case was filed in this Court on May 8, 2014, based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) The complaint alleges that “Plaintiff, Stacy E. Lake, is a

resident of Fort Wayne, Allen County, Indiana”; “Defendant, William E. Hezebicks, is believed

to be a resident of Ashtabula, Ohio”; “Defendant, Stan Koch Sons Trucking, is believed to be a

resident of Ardmore, Oklahoma”; and “Defendant, Stan Koch Sons Trucking, Inc., is believed to

be incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota maintaining its principal office in

Golden Valley, Minnesota . . . .” (Compl. ¶¶ 1-4.)

The complaint, however, is inadequate in several ways. First, it is well-settled 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, Plaintiff must

amend her complaint to allege Defendants’ citizenship on the basis of personal knowledge rather

than belief.

Second, although paragraph five of the complaint alleges that the individual parties are

all citizens of their respective states, this allegation improperly equates residency with

citizenship. Residency is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; an individual’s

citizenship is determined by his or her domicile. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th

Cir. 2002); 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.”); 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 also

28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, the Court must be advised of the individuals parties’ domicile,

rather than their residence, as the former determines citizenship.

Finally, as the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, 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). Plaintiff, however, has

failed to identify how Stan Koch Sons Trucking is organized; i.e., whether it is a corporation or

an unincorporated association. Plaintiff is reminded that for purposes of establishing diversity

jurisdiction, a corporation’s citizenship is different than that of an unincorporated association. 

Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC., 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). Corporations “are deemed to

be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and the state in which they have their

2
principal place of business.” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1990); see

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The term “principal place of business” refers to the corporation’s “nerve

center”—the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the

corporation’s activities. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). 

Conversely, “if a firm is not incorporated, its citizenship is determined by the citizenship

of its proprietor, partners, members, or other participants.” Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc., 292

F.3d 526, 528 (7th Cir. 2002). Therefore, if Stan Koch Sons Trucking is an unincorporated

association, the Court must be advised of the citizenship of all the members to ensure that none

of its members share a common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439

F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple levels”

for those members of Stan Koch Sons Trucking who are a partnership or an LLC, as anything

less can result in a dismissal or remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co.

v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Plaintiff must

amend her complaint to properly identify Stan Koch Sons Trucking’s organizational status.

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

Complaint reciting the parties’ citizenship on the basis of personal knowledge, and properly

allege forth Stan Koch Sons Trucking’s organizational status.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 9th day of May 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

3