NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

ALEXANDER BARDIS, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-814 (MLC)

:

Plaintiffs, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

KITTY STINSON, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFFS — who are New Jersey citizens — brought this

action on February 10, 2011, to recover damages for breach of

contract, and assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”)

1332. (Dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.; dkt. entry no. 3, Am. Compl.) 

The Court will sua sponte dismiss the Amended Complaint without

prejudice, as the plaintiffs have failed to properly allege the

citizenship of each defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)

(instructing court to dismiss complaint if jurisdiction is

lacking).

THE PLAINTIFFS merely allege that the defendant “Kitty”

Stinson (“Stinson”) has “a principal office” in Pennsylvania. 

(Am. Compl. at 1.) An allegation as to where a person resides, is

licensed, or has a place of business — as opposed to is a citizen

or is domiciled — will not properly invoke the Court’s

jurisdiction. See McCracken v. ConocoPhillips Co., 335 Fed.Appx.

161, 162-63 (3d Cir. 2009); Cruz v. Pennsylvania, 277 Fed.Appx.

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MLC-DEA Document 9 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 73
160, 162 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court also is concerned that

“Kitty” Stinson is not Stinson’s true name.

THE PLAINTIFFS merely allege that the defendant Stinson

Claims Services (“SCS”) is a corporation with “a principal

office” in Pennsylvania, and that the defendant Cumberland

Insurance Group (“CIG”) is a corporation with “a principal

office” in New Jersey. (Am. Compl. at 1.) Assuming that SCS and

CIG are indeed corporations, the plaintiffs fail to allege the

states in which each of these defendants is incorporated and has

“its” — as opposed to “a” — principal place of business. 28

U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1185-

86, 1192-93 (2010); Brooks-McCollum v. State Farm Ins. Co., 376

Fed.Appx. 217, 219 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 459

(2010); S. Freedman & Co. v. Raab, 180 Fed.Appx. 316, 320 (3d

Cir. 2006).

THE PLAINTIFFS have failed to show that they are deemed to

be citizens of a different state in relation to each defendant. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S.

81, 89 (2005) (requiring complete diversity between each plaintiff

and each defendant). Thus, the Court will dismiss the Amended

Complaint, but will do so without prejudice to the plaintiffs to

either – within thirty days – (1) recommence the action in state

court, as the limitations period is tolled by the filing of a

federal complaint, see Jaworowski v. Ciasulli, 490 F.3d 331, 333-

2

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MLC-DEA Document 9 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 74
36 (3d Cir. 2007); Galligan v. Westfield Ctr. Serv., 82 N.J. 188,

191-95 (1980), or (2) move in accordance with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules to reopen the action

in federal court, with documentation properly demonstrating the

citizenship of each party. If the plaintiffs opt to move to

reopen, then they do so at their own peril, as the Court will not

further extend the thirty-day period to proceed in state court.

THE PLAINTIFFS are advised – if they opt to move to reopen –

that jurisdiction is measured “against the state of facts that

existed at the time of filing”. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global

Grp., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004). Thus, the plaintiffs must (1)

demonstrate (a) that SCS and CIG are indeed corporations, and (b)

the citizenship of each of these defendants by proving the states

in which they were incorporated and had their principal places of

business on February 10, 2011, i.e., provide supporting

documentation, certificates of incorporation, and affidavits from

those with knowledge of the structure of these defendants, (2)

demonstrate Stinson’s true name and her citizenship as it existed

on February 10, 2011, with supporting documentation, and (3) show

that there is jurisdiction under Section 1332. The Court advises

the plaintiffs that they must specifically assert citizenship as

it existed on February 10, 2011.

THE COURT’S independent research reveals that SCS and CIG

may be unincorporated associations, e.g., limited liability

3

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MLC-DEA Document 9 Filed 04/29/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 75
companies, and thus the plaintiffs should take care to properly

assert the citizenship of each. See generally Carden v. Arkoma

Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990); Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v.

Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010); Swiger v. Allegheny Energy,

540 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court notes that the plaintiffs

should have ascertained the nature of ownership, and thus the

citizenship, of each of these defendants before choosing to bring

an action in federal court. See Freedman, 180 Fed.Appx. at 320.

THE COURT cautions the plaintiffs — if they opt to move to

reopen — against restating the allegations from the Amended

Complaint. The Court advises the plaintiffs that an allegation

based upon information and belief, an assertion that is not

specific (e.g., citizen of “a state other than New Jersey”), or a

request for time to discern jurisdiction will result in denial of

a motion to reopen. As the plaintiffs are represented by

counsel, the Court “should not need to underscore the importance

of adequately pleading and proving diversity”. CGB Occupational

Therapy v. RHA Health Servs., 357 F.3d 375, 382 n.6 (3d Cir.

2004); see Techstar Inv. P’ship v. Lawson, No. 94-6279, 1995 WL

739701, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 1995) (stating unsupported

Section 1332 jurisdiction allegation may violate Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 11); see also Cohen v. Kurtzman, 45

F.Supp.2d 423, 436-38 (D.N.J. 1999) (granting motion under Rule 

4

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MLC-DEA Document 9 Filed 04/29/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 76
11 for unsupported jurisdiction allegation); Hussey Copper v.

Oxford Fin. Grp., 121 F.R.D. 252, 253-54 (W.D. Pa. 1987) (same).

THE COURT will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: April 29, 2011

5

Case 3:11-cv-00814-MLC-DEA Document 9 Filed 04/29/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 77