PARSONS
v.
CHANGCO
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 Eleventh Circuit remanded this diversity jurisdiction case to the district court to determine whether the plaintiff adequately alleged his state citizenship and domicile. The district court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, as his amended complaint failed to specify his state of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The district court found the plaintiff's allegations insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction because they failed to provide his state of citizenship or domicile. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause by September 30, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, with dismissal without prejudice if the plaintiff failed to comply.
[1] For purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03 disclosure requirements in federal court, a party's state of citizenship must be identified based…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 allegations in the amended complaint were insufficient to establish Parsons's citizenship, because they stated only that he is a United States citizen and did not provide his state of citizenship or domicile.”
The Eleventh Circuit's identification of the deficiency requiring remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Vernon Ballad Parsons III filed an amended complaint alleging diversity jurisdiction based on being a United States citizen while the defend…
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 matter comes before the Court on an order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanding this case “for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of the parties to establish whether diversity jurisdiction exist[s] . . . .” (Doc. 39 at 3).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges diversity of citizenship because he is a United States citizen and Defendant a citizen of the Philippines. (Doc. 9 at 3).
In its Order, the Eleventh Circuit noted that “the allegations in the amended complaint were insufficient to establish Parsons’s citizenship, because they stated only that he is a United States citizen and did not provide his state of citizenship or domicile.” (Doc. 39 at 3) (emphasis in original) (citing 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1332(a) (“[D]istrict courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions . . . between . . . citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . .”)); see Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202, 1204 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (“To be a citizen of a state within the meaning of the diversity provision, a natural person must be both a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state.”); Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F. 3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (“For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.”) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff Vernon Ballad Parsons IIT is DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE on or before September 30, 2025, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reopen this case. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on September 9, 2025.
; fhe ALA iw. te
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tina arie Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013)
- Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202 (M.D. Fla. 1991)