govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_25-cv-02095-0

1
ġġ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
DOUGLAS HARRIS,    
 
 
Plaintiff,  
 
 
v. No. 16-0823-DRH  
 
 
MONSANTO COMPANY 
and JOHN DOES 1-50, 
 
 
D e f e n d a n t s .            
 
SHOW CAUSE ORDER 
 
 
HERNDON, District Judge: 
This matter comes before the Court for case management.  On July 20, 
2016, Douglas Harris filed suit against Monsanto Company and John Does 1-50 
based on the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 1).  On July 21, 2016, Chief 
District Judge Michael J. Reagan recused from this matter and it was reassigned to 
the undersigned (Doc. 5).  
A review of the complaint indicates that diversity citizenship is lacking.  As 
to the citizenships of John Does 1-50, the complaint states: “Upon best information 
and belief, Defendants JOHN DOES 1-50  are subsidiaries, partners, or other 
entities that were involved in the design, development, manufacture, testing, 
Case 3:25-cv-02095-DWD     Document 6     Filed 07/26/16     Page 1 of 3     Page ID
#<pageID>
2
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of 
the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The identities 
of JOHN DOES 1-50 are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff will move the 
Court to specifically name JOHN DOES 1-50 as their identities becomes known to 
Plaintiff through discovery.”  (Doc. 1, ¶ 11 ).  These allegations are insufficient to 
establish diversity jurisdiction. "… [B]ecause the existence of diversity jurisdiction 
cannot be determined without knowledge of every defendant's place of citizenship, 
“John Doe” defendants are not permitted in federal diversity suits.  [citations 
omitted.]  To this as to most legal generalizations there are exceptions. The 
obvious one, inapplicable to this case however, is if the “John Does” are merely 
nominal parties, irrelevant to diversity jurisdiction. Moore v. General Motors 
Pension Plans, supra,  91 F.3d at 850; U n i t e d  S t a t e s  F i r e  I n s .  C o .  v .  C h a r t e r  
Financial Group, Inc., supra,  851 F.2d at 958 n. 3. And naming a John Doe 
defendant will not defeat the named defendants' right to remove a diversity case if 
their citizenship is diverse from that of  the plaintiffs. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). That 
exception is also inapplicable to this case, which was not removed. Salzstein v. 
Bekins Van Lines, Inc.,  747 F.Supp. 1281, 1283 (N.D.Ill.1990).… So none of the 
exceptions applies here, and the plaintiff doesn't even have the excuse (not 
justification) of not knowing the defendant's name. It should not be difficult to 
determine an insurance company's state or states of citizenship."  Howell by 
Goerdt v. Tribune Entm't Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997).   
Case 3:25-cv-02095-DWD     Document 6     Filed 07/26/16     Page 2 of 3     Page ID
#<pageID>
3
Thus, the Court ORDERS plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before August 9, 
2016 why the Court should not dismiss John Does 1-50 for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction.  
IT IS SO ORDERED.  
Signed this 26th day of July, 2016. 
 
 
  
United States District Judge 
 
Digitally signed 
by Judge David 
R. Herndon 
Date: 2016.07.26 
09:17:30 -05'00'
Case 3:25-cv-02095-DWD     Document 6     Filed 07/26/16     Page 3 of 3     Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight