Minute Orr Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of [linois

- Soe
Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 00 C 7280 DATE 11/22/2000
CASE Beverly Curtis vs. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY: :
(1) Qo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due
(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at.
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for].on set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(a) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) im} [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4m) OGeneralRule21 FRCP4f(a)(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).

ao «6 {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's counsel is given until

November 29, 2000 within which to establish’ féderal subject matter jurisdiction by an appropriate

amendment to the Complaint, failing which this Court will be constrained to dismiss the Complaint and

this action on jurisdictional grounds.
dl) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

‘No notices required,
lo notices required, number of notices

v | Notices mailed by judge's staff,

Woy 242

Notified counsel by telephone. date dockes

Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form docket deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

1122/2000

date mailed notice

courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials

SN

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN ‘DIVISION
BEVERLY CURTIS, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 00 ¢C 7280

ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., INC.
DOCKETED

NOV 2 4 2009

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Three related plaintiffs--Beyerly Curtis and Alberta and Ann
Gresh--have filed a breach of contract and consumer fraud action
against Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. (“Orkin”), invoking federal
jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship grounds. This
memorandum order is issued sua sponte to direct plaintiffs’
lawyer to cure an obvious flaw in the Complaint’s jurisdictional
allegations.

There is no problem with satisfaction of the necessary over-
$75,000 jurisdictional amount , given the nature of the
Complaint’s allegations and its prayer for relief. Nor is the
Complaint wanting in its identification of the dual aspects of
corporate citizenship on Orkin’s part (see Complaint 45). But
what plaintiffs’ counsel has inexplicably done--inexplicably
because by definition diversity of citizenship depends on
citizenship--is to speak only of plaintiffs’ places of residence
(Complaint 492, 3 and 4), something that does not necessarily

coincide with citizenship.


There is really no justification for that kind of
inattention to the most fundamental principles of federal
jurisdiction. Indeed, our Court - of Appeals has with some
frequency trashed other lawsuits under like circumstances because
of their failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction (see,

e.g., Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Cory 211 F.3d 445, 447-49 (7 Cir.

2000) and numerous cases cited there).

Accordingly plaintiffs’ counsel is given until November 29,
2000 within which to establish federal subject matter
jurisdiction by an appropriate amendment to the Complaint,
failing which this Court will be donstrainea to dismiss the
Complaint and this action on jurisdictional grounds. And because
there is no reason that plaintiffs should pay for the incremental
legal work occasioned by that effort, no charge is to be made to
plaintiffs for the added work and expense incurred by their
counsel in correcting their own errors. Plaintiffs’ counsel are
ordered to apprise their clients to that effect by letter, with a
copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an

informational matter (not for filing) .

Vallee OSva

Milton I-
Senior United States District Judge

Date: November 22, 2000