Case 4:11-cv-00239-RP -TJS Document 4

Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * *

MICHAEL P. GIROUARD, Plaintiff, v. PLASMERG, INC., Defendant.

4:11-cv-00239

PRE-SCREENING ORDER

Michael P. Girouard (Plaintiff) filed the above-captioned action in this Court on May 24, 2011. Clerks No. 1. This Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, has a duty to assure itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction in every case. See Barclay Square Props. v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn of Minneapolis, 893 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir. 1990); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the courts jurisdiction. And, under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), a plaintiff in a diversity action must allege the citizenship of each party to the action. It is not enough to state where the parties reside. Everhart v. Huntsville Coll., 120 U.S. 223, 224 (1887); see also Texaco-Cities Serv. Pipeline Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 283 F.2d 144, 145 (8th Cir. 1960). Finally, in a diversity matter, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Although Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is proper based on diversity of citizenship, the Court must assure itself that the lawsuit is between citizens of different states. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that PlasmERG, Inc. (Defendant) is an Iowa corporation with its home office at 708 Main Street, South English, Keokuk County, Iowa

Case 4:11-cv-00239-RP -TJS Document 4

Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 2

52335. Compl. 2. For the purposes of determining whether there is diversity of citizenship, a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . . 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). The location of a corporations home office is not necessarily the same location as its principal place of business. See Rautenstrauch v. Stern/Leach Co., No. 03-10723, 2004 WL 42573, at *4 n.3 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2004) ([A] home office, . . . is potentially a different concept than a principal place of business . . . .); see also Mattson v. Cuyuna Ore Co., 180 F. Supp. 743, 745 (D. Minn. 1960) (concluding that a corporations principal place of business was in Minnesota even though its home office was in Ohio). Therefore, [a]n allegation that a corporations home office is located in a certain state is not sufficient to show its principal place of business for diversity purposes. McCrory Corp. v. Durwood Am. Inc., 343 F. Supp. 150, 152 (D. Neb. 1972). Thus, Plaintiff has not properly alleged Defendants citizenship. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs allegations regarding Defendants citizenship are insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to amend his Complaint, no later than June 1, 2011, to provide a short statement properly alleging the citizenship of the Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this __25th__ day of May, 2011.

-2-