EDWARD LINDSEY
v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2026-01-07
No. 3:25-cv-1521
2022 WL 17487990 2026 FFL 490 District Court, M.D. Florida (2026) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The court struck plaintiff's disclosure statement for failing to properly identify his citizenship as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03. The plaintiff stated only that he resides in Florida, which the court found insufficient; citizenship must be established based on domicile, not mere residence.

Holding

The court held that Plaintiff's disclosure statement failed to comply with the applicable rules because it did not properly identify Plaintiff's citizenship. The court struck the disclosure statement and ordered Plaintiff to file a proper disclosure statement by January 20, 2026.

Key Quotes

“If the filer is a natural person, the filer must identify the filer's citizenship in accord with the person's domicile, which does not necessarily correspond to the person's residence.”

Establishes the controlling standard that citizenship must be based on domicile, not residence, for disclosure statement purposes

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Edward Lindsey filed a disclosure statement in response to a court form requiring disclosure of citizenship if jurisdiction was based on div…

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.

Topics
Domicile Vs. Residence Residence Citizenship Domicile

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domicile Vs. Residence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff's Disclosure Statement, Doc. 11, fails to provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03. The Court will therefore strike Plaintiff's Disclosure Statement.

Question 7 of the Court's form requires that if jurisdiction is based on either 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), that the filer state his citizenship. In response, Plaintiff stated, “Plaintiff resides in Florida.” Doc. 11 at 3. This is insufficient. See Trudel v. Biotech, No. 8:22-cv-1823-TPB-SPF, 2022 WL 17487990, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2022); see also Doc. 11 at 3 ("If the filer is a natural person, the filer must identify the filer's citizenship in accord with the person's domicile, which does not necessarily correspond to the person's residence.").

Accordingly, the Court strikes Plaintiff's Disclosure Statement (Doc. 11). On or before January 20, 2026, Plaintiff must file a proper disclosure statement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 7, 2026.

Samuel J. Horovitz United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Lindsey v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 17487990 (M.D. Fla. 2026)
    …is based on either 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), that the filer state his citizenship. In response, Plaintiff stated, “Plaintiff resides in Florida.” Doc. 11 at 3. This is insufficient. See Trudel v. Biotech, No. 8:22-cv-1823-TPB-SPF, 2022 WL 17487990, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2022); see also Doc. 11 at 3 (“If the filer is a natural person, the filer must identify the filer’s citizenship in accord with the person’s domicile, which does not necessarily correspond to the person’s residence.”). Acco…
  • Wagner v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …rected to file a disclosure statement on or before September 5, 2025. In doing so, Plaintiff should ensure that she properly identifies citizenship, which does not necessarily correspond to residence. See Trudel v. Biotech, No. 8:22-cv-1823-TPB-SPF, 2022 WL 17487990, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2022). She should also note that "[w]here an estate is a party, the citizenship that counts for diversity purposes is that of the decedent, and she is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which she was domiciled at the ti…
  • Youngblood v. HKA Enters., 2022 WL 17487990 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …ed to the filer. Plaintiff responded affirmatively and stated, “Plaintiff Darrell Youngblood is U.S. citizen who maintains residency in the state of North Carolina.” Doc. 9 at 2. This is insufficient. See Trudel v. Biotech, No. 8:22-cv-1823-TPB-SPF, 2022 WL 17487990, at 1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2022); see also Doc. 9 at 3, Question 2(f) (requiring certification if filer identified a natural person that “the filer has identified citizenship in accord with the person’s domicile, which does not necessarily corr…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw