A A i il ill i Lata ideale ak deck

ik.

Yous

*

courts,” really confirms that what this Court said nearly two

decades ago in John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Central Nat'l
Bank, $55 F.Supp. 1026 (N.D. m1, 1983) remains good law today
(indeed, Azza’s counsel might have known better, because John |
Hancock pointed to Ninth Circuit authority in holding that the
inclusion of unidentified defendants destroys potential
diversity) .

In the subject matter jurisdictional game, even one strike

is out, and here Azza’s counsel has managed to swing and miss

‘more than once. As stated at the outset of this opinion, both

the Complaint and this action are dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.?

Milton I. Shadur .
Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 29, 2001

? Contrast Section 1332(a)’s silence on that score with the

express provision in Section 1441(a).

* This dismissal moots the application of Azza’s counsel

for pro hac vice admission to the bar of this District Court.

3



4

wl A i el

r
Minute @2&r Form (06/97)

on -lo se United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
sor Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur “tha sige Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C518 DATE 1/29/2001
CASE Azza International vs. Gas Research Institute, et al
= TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

Un the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

CUPRCP4(m) General Rule21  C) FRCP4I(a\(1) COFRCP41(a)(2).

are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dismissal moots the
counsel for pro hac vice admission to the bar of this District Court.

di) {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) Qa Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) og Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue_

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon____setfor__ at tit

(5) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for].on —____setfor__ at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference(held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on ——_setfor__ ss at_
(@) a Trial[set for/re-set for]on____at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

ao) Mf [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Both the Complaint and this action
application of Azza’s

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required ;
umber of noties

WA | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.

[><] Docketing to mait notices,
Mail AO 450 form.

gate docketed

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,

P) wesin001

ii)

courtroom ents date maited notice

SN deputy’s NYA ou
initials aes

4, JABaté/time teceived in

JAN 30 2001

docKeting deputy initials

Luk S" contrat Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AZZA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, )
Plaintiff, 7
v. No. 01 C 518
GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

under 28 U.S.C. §1332.1 Because the effort by Azza’ s counsel to
iba

eerie

establish such jurisdiction is fundamentally flawed in more “than

one respect, this Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint and

this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

of their respective corporate citizenships under Sectio

1332(c) (1). But as for the two named individual defendants,

S See

Jeffrey Savidge and. Thomas Roose, Complaint qs and 6 speak only

of their places of residence, although by definition it

1

All further references to Title 28's provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.



of citizenship purposes. On that score our Court of Appeals
consistently teaches what it has put succinctly in Held v. Held,

137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7% Gir. 1998), quoting Guaranty Nat‘l Title

Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7 Cir. 1996):

Of course, allegations of residence are insufficient to

establish diversity jurisdiction. It is well-settled

that “[w]hen the parties allege residence but not

citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.”

If that were all, this Court might be inclined to defer the
dismissel on the premise that although the statuses of residence
and citizenship do not necessarily coincide, the greater
likelihood is that the Complaint's flaw in that respect is
readily curable. But the California practitioner who represents
California-based corporation Azza has also chosen to follow a
pattern that this Court recognizes as often practiced in that
state: Both the caption and Complaint $7 also include the 100
“Doe” defendants as targets.

That may work in the California state court system, but it
simply will not do in the environment ofa “federal “court's
limited jurisdiction. Indeed, Congress has chosen to address
that very subject expressly in the removal context by providing
that “the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names
shall be disregarded” in considering the removability of an
action instituted in a state court (Section 1441(a)). But the

very enactment of that provision, while not issuing the same

prescription as to lawsuits originally filed in the federal