Cooks v. Emms

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
LASHUNDA L. COOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TODD EMMS and BRYAN GRYZMALA,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 23-cv-725-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is again before the Court on the issue of whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction.1 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se and alleged that from March 1, 2020-March 1,
2021, she lived in an apartment in Cahokia, Illinois that she rented from Defendants Todd Emms
and Bryan Gryzmala. Doc. 1, p. 1-2. The Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis,
finding that she had adequately alleged a state law claim against Defendants for negligently
maintaining her apartment. Doc. 6. Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the Court found that
Plaintiff’s allegations reflected that diversity jurisdiction existed in this case. Doc. 6. Plaintiff
provided an address in Missouri for both Defendants, and she was living in Illinois at the time she
filed the Complaint. Doc. 1, pp. 1-2. Considering the description of her physical injuries
(multiple electrocutions over a year), the amount in controversy plausibly exceeds $75,000. Doc.
6.
Upon motion by Plaintiff, the Court ordered service by the U.S. Marshal on Defendants.
1 The undersigned proceeds pursuant to consent by all parties. Docs. 5 and 32.
Case 3:23-cv-00725-RJD Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
Docs. 14 and 15. While the Court was awaiting service, a simple internet search revealed that
Defendant Gryzmala was likely a citizen of Illinois. Doc. 20. Defendants appeared through
counsel and were ordered to submit a jurisdictional brief regarding their citizenship at the time this
case was filed. Docs. 25 and 27. Their filings reflect that Defendant Gryzmala was a citizen of
Illinois when Plaintiff filed suit. Docs. 28 and 29. Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction does not
exist in this case. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365,
374 (1979).
Because there is no diversity jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege a federal
question, this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas v.
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (“[j]urisdiction is the ‘power to declare law’ and
without it the federal courts cannot proceed”); Hay v. Indiana State Bd. of Tax Com’rs, 312 F.3d
876, 889 (7th Cir. 2002) (“not only may the federal courts police subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte, they must”). Plaintiff was ordered to file any objection to dismissal by December 1, 2025
(Doc. 30). Plaintiff has since filed a Motion to Dismiss and acknowledged the lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Doc. 34. This matter is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. All pending deadlines are
VACATED and motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED: December 1, 2025
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00725-RJD Document 35 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>