BLACKFORD v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
2015-Ohio-1056
S.D. Ind.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Robert Clark Blackford filed suit naming Chase Bank and later failed to serve the Complaint within 120 days.
- Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Chase should not be dismissed for lack of timely service; Blackford replied that settlement efforts delayed service and he now wishes to proceed.
- Blackford pleaded diversity jurisdiction but alleged only his residency (Indiana) and did not allege Chase’s citizenship or state of incorporation/principal place of business.
- Blackford asserted the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 but provided no factual basis; the check at issue was $17,500 and Chase expressed skepticism.
- The Court discharged the show-cause order but ordered Blackford to file an Amended Complaint by April 3, 2015, properly alleging his citizenship, Chase’s corporate citizenship, and the amount in controversy; he must serve or seek waiver of service promptly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists | Blackford alleges diversity jurisdiction and amount exceeds $75,000 | Chase contests amount in controversy and the sufficiency of jurisdictional allegations | Court: jurisdictional facts insufficient; ordered Amended Complaint alleging plaintiff citizenship, Chase citizenship, and proper amount-in-controversy showing |
| Whether plaintiff's assertion of residency suffices for citizenship | Blackford alleges he resides in Indiana | Chase (and court) note residency ≠ citizenship and is insufficient | Court: plaintiff must allege state of citizenship (place one intends to remain) |
| Whether corporate defendant's citizenship was properly alleged | Blackford did not allege Chase's citizenship | Chase pointed out lack of allegations re: incorporation/principal place of business | Court: plaintiff must allege Chase’s state of incorporation and principal place of business to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) |
| Whether alleged amount in controversy meets threshold | Blackford alleges dispute exceeds $75,000 | Chase notes the contested check was $17,500 and doubts $75,000 threshold; warns punitive damages must be legally supportable | Court: amount-in-controversy must exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs; plaintiff must plead facts to support reliance on punitive damages if used |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing residency from citizenship for diversity purposes)
- Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 2002) (citizenship defined as the place one intends to remain)
- Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2006) (corporate citizenship includes state of incorporation and principal place of business)
- America’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1992) (jurisdictional allegations must be made on personal knowledge, not information and belief)
- Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) (federal courts must ensure they have jurisdiction)
- Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 2006) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules including jurisdictional pleading requirements)
- Anthony v. Sec. Pac. Fin. Servs., Inc., 75 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 1996) (punitive damages counted in amount-in-controversy only if recoverable under state law and pleaded with sufficient facts)