GOLDSBERRY
v.
DAVOL INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court addresses a jurisdictional defect in a diversity action by ordering the plaintiff to clarify his domicile as of the complaint filing date, as assertions of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction under federal law.
Assertions of residence are not determinative of domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes. The salient question is where the plaintiff was domiciled when the complaint was filed. Domicile requires a person's 'true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment' with the intention of returning whenever absent. The court ordered the plaintiff to clarify his domicile as of the complaint filing date.
[1] For diversity jurisdiction purposes, citizenship means domicile, and mere residence in a state is insufficient.
[2] A person's domicile is the place of their true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, to which they have the intention of returning whenever absent.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the diverse citizenship among adverse parties must be present at the time the complaint is filed”
Establishes the temporal requirement for diversity jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff alleged in his complaints that he was a citizen and resident of Florida. However, in his Amended Disclosure Statement, he provided a Mississ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domicile Vs. Residence cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court once again on review of Plaintiff's citizenship allegations.
In the Complaint (Doc. 1-1), the Amended Complaint (Doc. 5), and the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), Plaintiff alleged that he "was at all time material hereto a citizen and resident of the State of Florida." (Doc. 1-12; Doc. 5 2; Doc. 92). However, in his Amended Disclosure Statement, Plaintiff provided an address in Mississippi when asked to identify his citizenship. (Doc. 13 at 1-2). The Court thus ordered Plaintiff to "clarify where he is domiciled and provide an explanation of the discrepancy in his filings regarding his citizenship." (Order, Doc. 14).
Plaintiff responded to the Court's order by stating that "[a]t the time of the incident raised in the complaint Plaintiff was a resident of Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida" but that he has "reside[d]" in Mississippi since April 30, 2024. (Doc. 15 11 2-3). However, assertions of "residence" are not determinative of where Plaintiff was domiciled when he filed the Complaint in this case-the salient question in determining whether the parties to this case are of diverse citizenship. See Mas v. Perry, 489 F. 2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974) [fn 1] (explaining that "the diverse citizenship among adverse parties must be present at the time the complaint is filed" and that "[f]or diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient"). As defined in Mas, "[a] person's domicile is the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom." 489 F. 3d at 1399 (quoting Stine v. Moore, 213 F. 2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954)).
It is ORDERED that no later than August 15, 2025, Plaintiff shall state where he was domiciled that is, "the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom”—on May 31, 2025, the date on which he filed the Complaint in this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 6, 2025.
JOHN ANTOON II
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
[fn 1]: In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- MAS v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1954)