Craig v. Maxx Orthopedics, Inc., Case No. 15-CV-294

• Decision Date: 29 December 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 15-CV-294
• Parties: FRANKLIN CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAXX ORTHOPEDICS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

FRANKLIN CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MAXX ORTHOPEDICS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-294

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

December 29, 2016

ORDER

The plaintiffs filed the present action on March 16, 2015. It was initially assigned to the Honorable Rudolph T. Randa. The matter was reassigned to this court on September 2, 2016, after Judge Randa became unavailable due to illness and the parties consented to have a magistrate judge preside over their case. The court subsequently granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 68.) One defendant, Maxx Orthopedics Inc., then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Before the court can consider that motion, it must assess its jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Federal court jurisdiction in this case is based upon the alleged diversity of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 68, ¶ 1.) The plaintiffs allege that they "are all citizens of Wisconsin. The Defendants are

Page 2

all corporations incorporated in States other than Wisconsin, with their principal places of business in States other than Wisconsin." (ECF No. 68, ¶ 1.) Later in the complaint the plaintiffs identify their respective counties of residence. (ECF No. 68, ¶¶ 5-7.)

It is well-established that for diversity purposes it is citizenship, not residence, that matters. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905). "Citizenship depends ... on domicile, which means the place where a person intends to live in the long run." TRP LLC v. Orix Real Estate Capital, Inc., 827 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2016). Although residence or physical presence in a state is one component of domicile, citizenship also requires the intent to remain in the state. See Midwest Transit, Inc. v. Hicks, 79 Fed. Appx. 205, 208 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 216 (7th Cir. 1996)). A person might have multiple residences but may have only a single domicile. Murray v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6083, 3-4 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 28, 2008).

Notwithstanding the plaintiffs' focus upon residence rather than domicile, the court accepts for present purposes the plaintiffs conclusory allegations that they are all citizens of Wisconsin. However, in their third amended complaint the plaintiffs added three involuntary plaintiffs: Medicare, United Health Care, and Humana,...