COOMBS
v.
MITCHELL
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 court held that defendants must amend their notice of removal to properly allege the citizenship of all parties, not just their residence, to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed suit in state court, and defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal only stat…
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 Citizenship For Diversity Purposes cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on review of Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. 1-14 at 3-6). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “[BJecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F. 3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff, Silke Coombs, filed this case in state court on December 28, 2022. (Doc. 1). Defendants then removed it to this Court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1-14 at 3-6). But
Defendants have not sufficiently alleged diversity of citizenship. In the Notic of Removal, Defendants list the states of residence of Plaintiff and each of th three Defendants. (See Doc. 1-14 at 5).
However, “[rlesidence alone is no enough” to establish citizenship. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F. 3d 1266 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). “Citizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of diversit; jurisdiction.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002). “A person’s domicile is the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home anc principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom... .” Id. at 1257-58 (alteration in original (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mas v. Perry, 489 F. 2d 1396, [...] (5th Cir. 1974)). That a party may be a resident of a certain state does not establish that state as his or her domicile.
Thus, the Court cannot discern the citizenships of any of the parties or whether the parties are diverse.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that no later than February 17, 2023, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal identifying the citizenship— not merely the residence—of each party. = DONE and ORDERED on January yo 2028) / fo
JOHN ANTOON TT
/United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Tina arie Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013)
- MAS v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)