Gant v. Laske et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN GANT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-cv-1811-MTS
)
ANDREW DALE LASKE, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file, during which the Court
identified an issue with its subject-matter jurisdiction. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S.
77, 94 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). 	Defendants removed this action
from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis claiming that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 	Doc. [1] ¶ 3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)
(allowing removal of any civil action over which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction). Defendants, though, have not established this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction.
*
For the Court to have diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1), besides the amount
in controversy exceeding $75,000, Plaintiff cannot be a citizen of the same states as
Defendants. Wilkerson v. Mo. Dep’t of Mental Health, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1080 (E.D.
Case: 4:25-cv-01811-MTS Doc. #: 10 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Mo. 2003). This diversity of citizenship must exist “both when the plaintiff initiate[d] the
action in state court and when the defendant file[d] the notice of removal in federal court.”
Chavez-Lavagnino v. Motivation Educ. Training, Inc., 714 F.3d 1055, 1056 (8th Cir.
2013); accord Reece v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding
removal defective because defendant’s notice failed to specify party’s citizenship “when
the suit was commenced”). This requirement is not new. See Gibson v. Bruce, 108 U.S.
561, 563 (1883).
Here, while Defendants’ Notice alleges the parties’ diverse citizenship at the time
of removal, see Doc. [1] ¶¶ 5–8, there are no allegations concerning the parties’ citizenship
when Plaintiff filed his action in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. What is more,
Plaintiff’s Petition, filed ten weeks ago, specifically alleges that Defendant Andrew Laske
“is a resident of Warren County, Missouri.” Doc. [9] ¶ 2. To be sure, being a resident of
a state is not the same thing as being a citizen of the state. See Reece, 760 F.3d at 777–78
(finding allegation that a party was an Arkansas “resident” inadequate); accord Seven
Resorts, Inc. v. Cantlen, 57 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 1995) (F. Gibson, J., sitting by
designation). But given that the only information in the record that even hints at Defendant
Laske’s 	time-of-filing 	citizenship 	suggests 	that 	the 	parties 	were 	not 	diverse, 	it 	is
particularly vital that Defendants show that diversity existed when Plaintiff initiated this
case. 	See Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 745 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2014)
(noting “party seeking removal 	has the 	burden to establish 	federal subject matter
jurisdiction”); see also 14C Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 3723
Case: 4:25-cv-01811-MTS Doc. #: 10 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
(Rev. 4th ed.) (explaining that “if, after filing of the complaint in state court, the defendant
changed its citizenship so that it became diverse from the plaintiff at the time of removal
to federal court, removal would be improper”).
* * *
If Defendants can establish this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, they must file
an amended notice of removal that addresses the citizenship of every party when Plaintiff
filed his action in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis and when Defendants removed
it. See City of St. Louis v. Bindan Corp., 295 F.R.D. 392, 395 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (discussing
when notices of removal may be amended). Failure to properly do so will result in remand
of this action without further notice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
be remanded.”); see also Mints v. Educ. Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253, 1258–59, n.2 (3d Cir.
1996) (recognizing that, while district courts may remand a case without notice, they
generally should provide an opportunity for parties to be heard on the issue).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file an Amended Notice of
Removal no later than Monday, December 22, 2025. 	Failure to do so will result in
remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Dated this 17th day of December 2025.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01811-MTS Doc. #: 10 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>