Case: 1:24-cv-11568 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/16/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:201
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`KINZA KHAN,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`WAYNE LEVINSON,
`CANARY MISSION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 1:24-cv-11568
`Judge Martha M. Pacold
`
`
`ORDER
`This case is nearly identical to Khan v. Levinson et al., No. 1:24-cv-05882. In
`that case, the complaint failed to adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction.
`Realizing this, the court issued a minute entry instructing plaintiff to show cause
`why the case should not be dismissed on that ground. Specifically, the court stated:
`Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by 8/2/2024 why this case should not
`be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint
`does not contain allegations sufficient to enable the court to assess the
`citizenship of the individuals named in the complaint. See Guar. Nat.
`Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (indicating
`that “domicile,” not “residence,” determines the citizenship of
`individuals). Additionally, plaintiff has not identified what type of
`entity defendant Canary Mission is. It is unclear whether Canary
`Mission is an LLC, a corporation, or some other entity. Based on these
`pleadings, the court is unable to assess whether the parties are
`completely diverse. By 8/2/2024, plaintiff must submit a jurisdictional
`statement that properly alleges the citizenship of each party. To the
`extent that information about defendants’ citizenship is within
`defendants’ possession rather than plaintiff’s, defendants must provide
`that information to plaintiff in good faith for inclusion in the
`jurisdictional statement to allow the court to assess whether subject
`matter jurisdiction exists. If plaintiff does not submit a jurisdictional
`statement, or the allegations contained in plaintiff”s statement remain
`deficient, this case may be dismissed for lack of subject matter
`jurisdiction.
`Khan v. Levinson, No. 1:24-cv-05882, Dkt. #5 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2024).
`
`

`

`Case: 1:24-cv-11568 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/16/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:202
`
`On August 15th, thirteen days after the deadline, the court had not received
`a response to the show-cause order and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, failure to
`prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. Id. Dkt. #6. Plaintiff filed a
`motion to vacate the dismissal order, in which she argued that the complaint had
`properly alleged subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Dkt. #10. However, this argument
`did not address any of the jurisdictional concerns articulated in the July 16 minute
`entry. Ultimately, plaintiff withdrew the motion to vacate. Id. Dkt. #14.
`Plaintiff (represented by the same attorney) then filed this case, raising
`essentially the same allegations against the same defendants. [1]. Later that day,
`she filed an amended complaint, [4]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Like the
`complaint in the original case, both the original and amended complaints in this
`case raise only state law claims. Thus, the amended complaint attempts to invoke
`jurisdiction solely under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). See [4] ¶ 4.1
`The jurisdictional allegations in the amended complaint suffer from nearly
`identical defects as those in the first case. Jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1) requires
`“complete diversity.” E.g., Page v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 2 F.4th 630, 636
`(7th Cir. 2021). In other words, “a federal court must satisfy itself that no party on
`the plaintiff’s side of the suit shares citizenship with any party on the defendant’s
`side.” Id. To do so, the court must be able to identify the citizenship of each party.
`But the amended complaint does not identify plaintiff’s citizenship. Instead,
`it explains only that she “is a resident of the State of Illinois.” [4] ¶ 4; see also id.
`¶ 8 (stating that plaintiff “resid[es]” in the Northern District of Illinois).
`“[A]llegations of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.” Tylka
`v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445, 448 (7th Cir. 2000). Instead, individuals are
`citizens of their state of domicile. Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 216 (7th Cir.
`1996). Neither the amended complaint nor any other portion of the record in either
`case discloses plaintiff’s domicile.
`The amended complaint also does not properly identify defendant Canary
`Mission’s citizenship. It explains that “Defendant CANARY MISSION is an entity
`organized and registered under the laws of the State of New York and it has its
`principal place of business in the State of New York.” [4] ¶ 5. Thus, the amended
`complaint argues, Canary Mission “is considered a citizen of that State pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1332. That is true if Canary Mission is a corporation. See 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(c)(1). As the initial minute entry noted, however, plaintiff has not identified
`what type of entity Canary Mission is. Instead, she identifies Canary Mission only
`as “an entity” and “a website.” [4] ¶¶ 4, 10. Thus, the court cannot tell whether
`Canary Mission is a corporation—and thus a citizen of the state where it is
`incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business, see 28 U.S.C.
`
`1 Bracketed numbers refer to docket entries in this case and are followed by page and / or
`paragraph number citations. Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF page number.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:24-cv-11568 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/16/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:203
`
`§ 1332(c)(1)—or some other type of entity—and thus a citizen of each state where
`any of its members is a citizen, see Page, 2 F.4th at 635.
`The amended complaint does, unlike its predecessor, identify the domicile of
`defendant Wayne Levinson. [4] ¶ 4 (stating “[o]n information and belief” that
`Levinson “resides and is domiciled in” Utah). That is a step in the right direction.
`However, without knowing the citizenship of the other parties, the court cannot
`assess the jurisdictional implications of Levinson’s citizenship.
`“The district courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction.”
`Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 7 (2022). We “possess only that power authorized
`by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
`375, 377 (1994). Where, as here, the party invoking federal jurisdiction fails to
`demonstrate that her case falls within the jurisdiction Congress has authorized the
`federal courts to exercise, the court must dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see
`Guaranty Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58 (7th Cir. 1996) (“When
`the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.”).
`To be sure, “[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended.”
`28 U.S.C. § 1653. But courts need not give endless opportunities to establish
`jurisdiction. Dismissal is proper where plaintiffs have been “reminded . . . of the
`need to establish complete diversity of citizenship” and yet do not do so. Am.’s Best
`Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992) (per
`curiam). Not only did the July 16 minute entry “remind” plaintiff of the need to
`properly allege jurisdiction, but it also specifically identified the jurisdictional
`shortcomings—shortcomings that remain unaddressed.2
`Failure to rectify the jurisdictional problems after one opportunity “leads [the
`court] to doubt that a second would be any more successful,” Guaranty, 101 F.3d
`at 59—especially where counsel appears to simply disagree that the allegations are
`insufficient. “Litigants who call on the resources of the federal court must establish
`that the tribunal has jurisdiction, and when after multiple opportunities they do not
`
`
`2 The court has also reviewed plaintiff’s statements regarding jurisdiction in the several
`civil cover sheets filed across the two cases. None provide additional information about the
`requisite jurisdictional facts. The first civil cover sheet (in the first case) indicates that
`plaintiff is a “Citizen of This State” while defendants are a “Citizen of Another State” and
`“Incorporated and Principal Place of Business in Another State,” respectively. Khan v.
`Levinson, No. 1:24-cv-05882, Dkt. #1-1 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2024). The next, filed in this case,
`is entirely blank. [2]. It was soon followed by another, which gives the same indications
`regarding party citizenship as the one from the first case. [3]. Finally, on December 10th,
`plaintiff filed two additional civil cover sheets, both of which also mirror the information
`given in the original civil cover sheet from the first case. [12], [13]. Because none of the
`civil cover sheets indicate plaintiff’s domicile or the type of entity Canary Mission is, they
`do not allow the court to determine that it has jurisdiction.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:24-cv-11568 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/16/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:204
`
`demonstrate that jurisdiction is present, the appropriate response is clear.” Id. “At
`some point the train of opportunities ends.” Am.’s Best, 980 F.2d at 1074.
`Because jurisdiction has not been established, “the only function remaining to
`the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v.
`Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (citation omitted).
`
`CONCLUSION
`This case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
`jurisdiction. The motion for service by publication, [9], is denied as moot. Enter
`final judgment. Civil case terminated.
`Dated: December 16, 2024
`
`/s/ Martha M. Pacold
`
`
`
`4
`
`