Hubert v. General Electric Company (2016)

Our plain-English summary of Hubert v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, March 10, 2016).

Patricia Hubert sued General Electric Company, individually and as special administrator of the estate of her husband Robert Hubert, over his death. Her complaint said he developed mesothelioma and died. She filed in federal court in the Southern District of Illinois, claiming jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The judge raised the jurisdiction question on her own. The opinion does not describe where or how Mr. Hubert was exposed to asbestos. The court found the complaint defective in three ways. It said where Ms. Hubert lived, but the estate's representative takes the citizenship of the deceased person, and the complaint said nothing about his citizenship. It also said nothing about General Electric's citizenship. And it stated the amount in controversy inconsistently, alleging more than $75,000 in one place but asking for more than $50,000 in the damages request. The court ordered an amended complaint by March 31, 2016, and treated all pending motions as moot. It did not reach the merits.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
• Decided: March 10, 2016
• Docket: Case No. 16-CV-51-SMY-PMF
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: Illinois

Outcome. The court found Plaintiff Patricia Hubert had not properly pleaded diversity jurisdiction against General Electric and ordered her to file an amended complaint by March 31, 2016; pending motions were denied as moot.

What the court held. A representative of a decedent's estate is deemed a citizen of the decedent's state for diversity purposes, so the complaint must allege the decedent's and the defendant's citizenship and clearly plead an amount in controversy above $75,000.

Issues decided: Wrongful Death and Survival, Personal Jurisdiction.

The people and their exposure

• Robert Hubert: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• General Electric Company

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

PATRICIA HUBERT, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of ROBERT HUBERT,

deceased Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. 16-CV-51-SMY-PMF.

March 10, 2016.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007) ("it is the responsibility of a court to make an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case"). In this action, Plaintiff, Patricia Hubert, asserts claims against Defendant General Electric Company ("GE") arising from the death of Plaintiff's Decedent, Robert Hubert. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Decedent developed mesothelioma resulting in his death. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff asserts that this Court has original jurisdiction over the action based on the complete diversity of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff, however, has failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction.

"For a cause to be within the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, diversity must be `complete,' meaning that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant." Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. V. City of Sheboygan Falls, 713 F.2d 1261, 1264 (7th Cir. 1983). Additionally, an amount in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, must be in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff, as the proponent of federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case, bears the burden of proof as to the existence of such jurisdiction. See Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 540 (7th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff asserts that she resides in South Carolina and is the "duly appointed Personal Representative for the Estate of Robert Hubert. . ." (See Doc. 1, p. 1). The statutory grant of diversity jurisdiction to the federal courts provides, in pertinent part, that "the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent." See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2); see also Clevenger v. Eastman Chem. Co., No. 07-cv-148-DRH, 2007 WL 2458474, at * [*4]-5 (S.D.Ill. Aug. 24, 2007) (holding in an action under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act that the citizenship of the administrator of a decedent's estate is that of the administrator's decedent). Thus, where Plaintiff resides is irrelevant to establishing diversity jurisdiction.[1] Rather, because Plaintiff brings this action in a representative capacity, her citizenship for diversity purposes is that of her Decedent. Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any allegations regarding the citizenship of the Decedent. Plaintiff's Complaint is also defective in that it contains no allegations regarding GE's citizenship. Accordingly, Plaintiff must amend her Complaint to properly allege the citizenship of both Decedent Robert Hubert and GE. Finally, the Court's exercise of diversity jurisdiction also requires that an amount in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, be in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). To determine the amount in controversy, the Court looks to the face of the complaint. Chase v. Shop `N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). In this case, the Complaint does not clearly establish the amount in controversy. At one point, Plaintiff alleges that the jurisdictional amount is "in excess of $75,000.00" (See Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff's ad damnum clause, however, requests an "amount in excess of $50,000.00" (See Doc. 1, p. 3). As such, the Complaint does not fairly and clearly demonstrate that the amount-in-controversy requirement of § 1332 has been met. See, Morales v. Menard, Inc., No. 12-CV-9082, 2014 WL 1364996, at [*1] (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2014) ("The party seeking federal jurisdiction bears the burden to prove that the amount-in-controversy requirement of § 1332 has been met and that this Court has jurisdiction").

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint addressing the aforementioned defects on or before March 31, 2016. All pending motions are MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] The Court notes that "residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the latter that matters for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Meyerson v. Harrah's E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002). As such, Plaintiff's allegations regarding residency are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Illinois asbestos laws
• Illinois asbestos exposure sites