United Methodist Church of Waterloo Inc, The v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 1:2011cv00427 - Document 6 (N.D. Ind. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER; defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended Notice of Removal on/before 1/6/12, properly alleging the plaintiff's citizenship as outlined. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 12/28/11. (jcp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF WATERLOO, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-427 OPINION AND ORDER This case was removed to this Court from the DeKalb Superior Court by Defendant based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiff, The United Methodist Church of Waterloo, is now and was at the commencement of this action a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana. (Notice of Removal ¶ 4.) Defendant s Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate as to Plaintiff s citizenship because corporations are deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and of the state in which they have their principal place of business. N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Thus, the Court must be apprised of both facts with respect to Plaintiff, The United Methodist Church of Waterloo. While the Notice of Removal alleges Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Indiana, it makes no mention of Plaintiff s principal place of business as 1 required.1 Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended Notice of Removal on or before January 6, 2012, properly alleging the Plaintiff s citizenship, including its principal place of business. SO ORDERED. Enter for this 28th day of December, 2011. /S/ Roger B. Cosbey Roger B. Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge 1 Although Defendant cites to the first paragraph of the Complaint, which is attached to the Notice of Removal, the Complaint merely alleges that Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation conducting business at 300 W. Maple, P.O. Box 10, Waterloo, Dekalb County, Indiana. (Notice of Removal Ex. A, ¶ 1.) The Court must still be advised of Plaintiff s principal place of business. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
