Chidester-Roesch v. Camp Douglas Farmers Coop.
| Decision Date | 07 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | 13-cv-521-bbc |
| Parties | JENNIFER D. CHIDESTER-ROESCH, individually and as independent executor of the ESTATE OF DENNIS J. CHIDESTER and the ESTATE OF CAROLYN CHIDESTER, Plaintiffs, v. CAMP DOUGLAS FARMERS COOPERATIVE, TRIANGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, v. C.H.S., INC. and ZURN PEX, INC., Third Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Plaintiffs Jennifer Chidester-Roesch, estate of Dennis Chidester and estate of Carolyn Chidester are suing defendant Camp Douglas Farmers Cooperative for negligently installing a propane tank that later exploded and killed Dennis and Carolyn. Plaintiffs identify defendant Triangle Insurance Company as the cooperative's insurer and defendant United Health Services as an entity that paid some of Dennis's and Caroyln's medical expenses before they died. Defendants Camp Douglas and Triangle have filed third party complaints against CHS, Inc. and Zurn Pex, Inc., who are identified as the propane supplier and themanufacturer of the flexible conduit.
A review of plaintiffs' complaint raises questions about subject matter jurisdiction that must be resolved before I can allow the case to proceed. McCready v. White, 417 F.3d 700, 702 (7th Cir. 2005) () (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)). Plaintiffs rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as a basis for jurisdiction, which requires a showing that (1) plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different states and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Although plaintiffs' complaint appears to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, it does not show that plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different states.
In the complaint, plaintiff Chidester-Roesch alleges that she is a "resident" of Illinois. In addition, she says that the estates of Dennis Chidester and Carolyn Chidester are pending in court in Illinois. These allegations are inadequate for two reasons. First, an individual's citizenship under § 1332 is determined not by her residency, but by her "domicile," which is "the state in which [she] intends to live over the long run." Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has stated in numerous cases that allegations about residency are not enough. In re Sprint Nextel Corp., 593 F.3d 669, 673-74 (7th Cir. 2010) ( ). See also Heinen, 671 F.3d at 670 (); Macken ex rel. Macken v. Jensen, 333 F.3d 797, 799 (7th Cir. 2003); McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 653 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus, plaintiff Chidester-Roesch must identify not just where she lives, but whether she intends to remain there.
Second, because plaintiff Chidester-Roesch is suing on her own behalf as well as in her capacity as the legal representative of the estates of Dennis Chidester and Carolyn Chidester, it is necessary to determine not only Chidester-Roesch's citizenship, but also the citizenship of the decedents at the time they died. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) (); Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2009) (). Plaintiffs say nothing about the citizenship of Dennis and Carolyn. It may be that they were citizens of the state in which their estate is pending, but I cannot simply assume that.
With respect to the citizenship of defendants, plaintiff alleges that defendant Triangle is a "foreign corporation" with a principal place of business in Oklahoma; defendant Camp Douglas is a "Wisconsin membership cooperative" with a principal place of business in Wisconsin; and defendant United Healthcare is a "foreign corporation" with a principal place of business in Minnesota. Plaintiff's allegations are inadequate with respect to each of these defendants.
With respect to defendants Triangle and United Healthcare, corporations are citizens of the states in which they are incorporated and the states in which they maintain their principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Although plaintiffs identify defendants' principal places of business, they do not say where the defendants are incorporated.
With respect to defendant Douglas Camp, plaintiff does not say explicitly whether it is incorporated. If it is, plaintiff must identify its state of incorporation. Otherwise, plaintiff must identify the citizenship of each of defendant Douglas Camp's members. Indiana Gas Co., Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 141 F.3d 314, 316 (7th Cir. 1998) ( ).
Finally, I note that defendant United Healthcare may be aligned improperly. Generally, the fundamental question regarding proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial