govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00218-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
 
TERRI S. ALPERT, et al. 
 
  Plaintiffs,  
 
 v.  
 
EAGLE FUND, III, et al.,  
 
  Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
 No. 4:26-CV-218 HEA 
 
  
 
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER  
This matter is before the Court on review of the file  and following two Orders 
Concerning Jurisdiction.  (ECF Nos. 9 and 12).  
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs Terri S. Alpert and Bruce H. Alpert, in his capacity 
as trustee of The Terri S. Alpert Family Spray Trust, assert that there is federal subject 
matter jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are citizens 
of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  (ECF No. 1 at 3).  
In an Order Concerning Jurisdiction dated February 26, 2026, the Court found 
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is procedurally defective, because it does not contain suffic ient 
allegations of jurisdictional facts to establish the existence of diversity  jurisdiction.  
(ECF No. 9).  More specifically, the Court found the Complaint contains inadequate 
allegations concerning the relevant jurisdictional facts about Plaintiffs citizenship, 
because the Complaint alleges their state of residence and not their state of citizenship. 
Case: 4:26-cv-00218-HEA     Doc. #:  13     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) , Reece v. Bank of New 
York Mellon, 760 F.3d 771, 777–78 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding, for individual parties, an 
allegation of residence is not the equivalent of an allegation of citizenship, and does not 
satisfy the pleading requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1332(a)(1)).  
In addition, the Court found the Complaint contains inadequate allegations 
concerning the relevant jurisdictional facts about Defendants Eagle Fund III, LP’s and 
Eagle Fund III-A, LP’s citizenship. The Complaint alleges that Defendants Eagle Fund 
III, LP a nd Eagle Fund III -A, LP are limited partnerships formed under the laws of 
Missouri.  There are also allegations that “[n]on -party Benjamin Geis [ ]  serves as 
general partner in the fund”  and he “also serves as general partner in Eagle [Fund] III-
A[, LP].”  (ECF No. 1 at 2-3).  But there are no allegations as to the citizenship of Mr. 
Geis, and there is no other information regarding the other partners of Eagle Fund III, 
LP and Eagle Fund III-A, LP.  Therefore, the Complaint contains inadequate allegations 
concerning the relevant jurisdictional facts about Defendants’ citizenship. GMAC Com. 
Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 357F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004); Buckley v. 
Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97 (8th Cir. 1991). 
In the February 26, 2026 Order Concerning Jurisdiction, t he Court ordered 
Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship 
of all parties to this action on or before March 6, 2026.  On March 5, 2026, Plaintiffs 
moved for an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order.  They also requested 
Case: 4:26-cv-00218-HEA     Doc. #:  13     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.  Plaintiffs asserted that they were unable to 
determine the citizenship of the defendant limited partnerships, and they sought early 
discovery to ascertain this information.  The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to conduct 
early jurisdictional discovery as to the citizenship of the defendants, although the Court 
did grant Plaintiffs additional time to file an Amended Complaint.  The Court ordered 
Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishi ng complete 
diversity of citizenship by March 23, 2026.  Plaintiffs were warned that if they did not 
comply with the terms of the Order, their cause of action would be dismissed without 
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 12).  As of today’s date,  
Plaintiffs have not filed an Amended Complaint.   
 “Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject -matter 
jurisdiction exists[.]” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) .  “Federal courts 
are courts of limited jurisdiction.  The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a 
threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United 
States and is inflexible and without exception.”  Kessler v. Nat'l Enters., Inc., 347 F.3d 
1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003)  (quotation marks and quoted case omitted).  Statutes 
conferring diversity jurisdiction are strictly construed, Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 
1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992), and the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the 
party asserting jurisdiction, here the plaintiffs.  See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance 
Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) .  “When jurisdiction is based on diversity 
of citizenship, the pleadings . . . must set forth with specificity the citizenship of the 
Case: 4:26-cv-00218-HEA     Doc. #:  13     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
parties.”  Barclay Square Props. v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis , 
893 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir. 1990) .  “[T]he court may .  . . insist that the jurisdictional 
facts be established or the case be dismissed[.]” McNutt, 298 U.S. at 189.   
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to properly allege that  there is federal 
subject matter jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. §  1332.  The Complaint does 
not “set forth with specificity the citizenship of the parties.” Barclay Square Properties, 
893 F.2d at 969.  See also GMAC Com. Credit LLC, 357 F.3d at 829; Sanders, 823 F.2d 
at 216.  The Court, therefore, dismisses this cause of action without prejudice for lack 
of subject matter jurisdiction.  
 Accordingly,  
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above -captioned cause of action is 
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  
An appropriate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Opinion, Memorandum 
and Order.  
 Dated this 11th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
   ________________________________ 
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Case: 4:26-cv-00218-HEA     Doc. #:  13     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight