Case: 4:13-cv-01280-CDP Doc. #: 2 Filed: 07/10/13 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
GERALD D. SMITH,
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al.,
Case No. 4:13CV1280 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This newly-filed case is before me on my review of the file. Plaintiff brings state law
claims against his bank and his ex-wife because his ex-wife allegedly took life insurance
proceeds belonging solely to plaintiff, deposited them in the marital joint checking account, and
then transferred them to her sole account, all without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. Plaintiff,
a Missouri resident, pleads that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),
because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and defendant Bank of America “maintains
its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.” (Comp. ¶ 18).
These allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action for at least two reasons. First, pleading residency is insufficient to
establish citizenship, which are two different things. Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d
214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). Secondly, plaintiff ignores the citizenship of the second defendant, his
ex-wife, who plaintiff alleges is also a Missouri resident. (Comp. ¶ 19). “Diversity jurisdiction
requires complete diversity, that is where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state where
“The threshold requirement in every federal case is jurisdiction and we have admonished
the district court to be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases.”
Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987).
Case: 4:13-cv-01280-CDP Doc. #: 2 Filed: 07/10/13 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 29
any plaintiff holds citizenship.” Cascades Development of Minnesota, LLC v. National Specialty
Ins., 675 F.3d 1095, 1098 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Although residency does not equate with citizenship for purposes of establishing diversity
jurisdiction, it is evidence to be considered. Here, as both plaintiff and his ex-wife are Missouri
residents, it appears that diversity jurisdiction is lacking. Because plaintiff’s complaint is silent
as to the citizenship of the parties, and complete diversity of citizenship is not apparent from the
face of the complaint (and indeed, appears to be lacking), the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction
over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of July, 2013.
- 2 -