8/6/2019 04) Https Ecf.iasd.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=1355641-0--406

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/04-https-ecfiasduscourtsgov-cgi-bin-show-temppl-file1355641-0-406 1/2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION

*

MICHAEL P. GIROUARD, * 4:11-cv-00239*

Plaintiff, **

v. **

PLASMERG, INC., * PRE-SCREENING ORDER*

Defendant. **

Michael P. Girouard (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-captioned action in this Court on May

24, 2011. Clerk’s 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 Ass’n 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 court’s 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 1 of 2

8/6/2019 04) Https Ecf.iasd.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=1355641-0--406

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/04-https-ecfiasduscourtsgov-cgi-bin-show-temppl-file1355641-0-406 2/2

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 corporation’s “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 corporation’s principal place of business was

in Minnesota even though its home office was in Ohio).  Therefore, “[a]n allegation that a

corporation’s 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 Defendant’s citizenship.

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendant’s 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-

Case 4:11-cv-00239-RP -TJS Document 4 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 2