Fyffe v. Boeing Company

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM T. FYFFE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY
and PARIC LLC,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:24-CV-2582-NJR
ORDER OF REMAND
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Renewed Motion to Remand filed on November
25, 2025, by Plaintiff William T. Fyffe. (Doc. 36). Fyffe initiated this action in the Circuit Court
for St. Clair County, Illinois, on November 7, 2024, alleging that he suffered injuries after
slipping and falling on ice on the premises of Defendant The Boeing Company’s drone facility
at MidAmerica Airport. (Doc. 1-1). In addition to Boeing, Fyffe named John Doe Snow
Removal Company as a defendant. (Id.).
On December 9, 2024, Boeing removed the action to this district court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and § 1441(b)(1). (Doc. 1). The Notice of
Removal alleges that Fyffe is a citizen of Missouri, that Boeing is incorporated in Delaware
with its principal place of business in Virginia, and that the amount in controversy, excluding
interest and costs, exceeds $75,000. (Id.). Furthermore, Boeing asserted that the alleged Illinois
citizenship of John Doe Removal Company should be disregarded under § 1441(b).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (“the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be
disregarded”). In sum, Boeing argued, complete diversity existed between the adverse
Case 3:24-cv-02582-NJR Document 37 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
parties and the amount in controversy requirement was met. Thus, this Court enjoyed
original subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The undersigned subsequently held a
scheduling conference with the parties and entered a Scheduling and Discovery Order.
(Docs. 18, 19).
The parties engaged in written discovery and, in answering Fyffe’s interrogatories,
Boeing alleged that Paric Corporation was the general contractor on the premises at the time
of Fyffe’s incident. (Doc. 21). Thus, Fyffe sought leave of court to amend his Complaint to
name Paric LLC, f/k/a Paric Corporation, as a defendant in place of the John Doe Snow
Removal Company. (Id.). The undersigned granted Fyffe’s motion (Doc. 22), and the
Amended Complaint was filed on May 20, 2025. (Doc. 23). Boeing answered the Amended
Complaint and asserted a crossclaim against Paric LLC. (Doc. 26). Fyffe then filed a Second
Amended Complaint on October 31, 2025, that more specifically alleged the citizenship of
Paric LLC. (Doc. 35).
Fyffe now seeks to remand this case to state court because the addition of Paric LLC
as a party destroys this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. The Second Amended Complaint
alleges that Fyffe is a citizen of Missouri, Boeing is a citizen of Delaware, and Paric LLC is a
citizen of Missouri, as each member of the LLC is a Missouri citizen. Neither Boeing nor Paric
filed a response to the motion to remand.
L EGAL S TANDARD
Removal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides, in relevant part, “any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
Case 3:24-cv-02582-NJR Document 37 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under § 1332, a federal district court has original subject matter
jurisdiction over civil actions involving complete diversity between the parties plus an
amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a); LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enterprises Inc., 533 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2008). Complete
diversity means that “no defendant may share the same state citizenship as any plaintiff.”
Big Shoulders Capital LLC v. San Luis & Rio Grande Railroad, Inc., 13 F.4th 560, 571 (7th Cir.
2021).
The removing party, as the proponent of federal subject matter jurisdiction, has the
burden of establishing the existence of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
See Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 540-43 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Carroll v.
Stryker Corp., 658 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2011). “If at any time before final judgment it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c).
Fyffe and Paric LLC are both Missouri citizens; therefore, this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the case.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. 36) filed by Plaintiff William
T. Fyffe is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	December 29, 2025
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02582-NJR Document 37 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>