UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT GALLAGHER, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CV-410-RL-PRC

)

NADA PAJEVIC, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court must continuously police its subject

matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002). The

Court must dismiss this action if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Currently, the Court is unable to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation.

Plaintiff Robert Gallagher invoked this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction via diversity

jurisdiction by filing this litigation in federal court. As the party seeking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff

has the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd.

of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802-03 (7th Cir. 2009).

For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff and Defendant Nada Pajevic must be

citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000. Citizenship

is determined by domicile, not by residence. 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) (“[R]esidence 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., Inc. 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).
“For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a

certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.” Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). The Amended Complaint alleges only that Plaintiff “is a long

time resident of Indiana and natural born citizen of the United States of America” and that

Defendant “is a long time resident of Illinois.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 4). Plaintiff also alleges

that, at times, he stayed in Defendant’s house in Illinois. Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s allegations of his and

Defendant’s residencies is insufficient.

Plaintiff must properly allege the state of citizenship of himself and of Defendant. In other

words, Plaintiff must allege where both parties are domiciled, not where they reside. Further,

Plaintiff must support these allegations with “competent proof,” that is, evidence proving “to a

reasonable probability that jurisdiction exists.” Chase v. Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110

F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Competent proof is also needed to support Plaintiff’s allegation that

the amount in controversy in this litigation is in excess of $75,000.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to FILE, on or before November 9, 2017, a

supplemental jurisdictional statement that properly alleges the domicile of Plaintiff and Defendant

and presents evidence providing competent proof of the parties’ domiciles and of an amount in

controversy over $75,000.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2017.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: Plaintiff Robert Gallagher, pro se

Defendant Nada Pajevic, pro se

2