Source: https://fedcivilprocedure.com/2012/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:05:44+00:00

Document:
Saylor v. Boyd, Dist. Court, SD Illinois 2012 – Google Scholar.
This is an old lesson, but one worth remembering. The plaintiff must allege diversity jurisdiction by alleging the citizenship of the plaintiff and the defendant. Residency is not citizenship. This lesson appears again and again in the federal jurisprudence, but some plaintiffs do not seem to learn it.
(“Under the rule of complete diversity, if there are residents of the same state on both sides of a lawsuit, the suit cannot be maintained under the diversity jurisdiction even when there is also a nonresident party.”); Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. City of Sheboygan Falls, 713 F.2d 1261, 1264 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806)) (“For a case to be within the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, diversity of citizenship must be `complete,’ meaning that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”). The removing defendant, as the proponent of federal subject matter jurisdiction, has the burden of proof as to the existence of such jurisdiction. See Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc., 528 F.3d 982, 986 (7th Cir. 2008); In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 1997); Misiak v. Farmer, Civil No. 10-133-GPM, 2010 WL 685895, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2010).
via LOELLKE v. Moore, Dist. Court, SD Illinois 2012 – Google Scholar.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. YOUR FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS, INC., Dist. Court, ND Indiana 2012 – Google Scholar.
The court found that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because (a) plaintiff alleged residency, not citizenship; and (b) the allegations were made on information and belief.
The court ordered plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.