HANCOCK
v.
TARGET CORPORATION
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 it lacked diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff, a United States citizen domiciled abroad, cannot establish diversity jurisdiction with a citizen of a state.
Plaintiff Cheryl Hancock, a United States citizen domiciled in Mexico, sued Target Corporation, a citizen of Minnesota. The Court ordered parties to d…
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 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On March 13, 2025, the Court directed the parties to file documentation to support the Court's exercise of diversity jurisdiction over this action. See Jurisdictional Order (Doc. 9). In particular, the Court directed Plaintiff to state both her national and State citizenships, explaining that:
While alienage jurisdiction may exist between a citizen of a foreign nation and a citizen of a State, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), when a United States citizen is domiciled in a foreign nation, diversity jurisdiction is not proper between that individual and a citizen of a State. See Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202, 1203-05 (M.D. Fla. 1991), affd sub nom. Las Vistas Villas v. Petersen, 13 F. 3d 409 (11th Cir. 1994); Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. and Proc. § 3602 n.11 (3d ed. 2024) (collecting cases).
Id. at 3.
Each party has now filed a disclosure statement that addresses its citizenship in conformity with the Court's Jurisdictional Order. See Defendant, Target Corporation's Disclosure Statement Under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 (Doc. 11; Defendant's Disclosure), filed April 3, 2025; Plaintiff, Cherly [sic] Hancock's Disclosure Statement Under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 (Doc. 20; Plaintiff's Disclosure), filed April 28, 2025. In her disclosure, Plaintiff states that she is a United States citizen domiciled in Mexico. See Plaintiff's Disclosure at 2. In its disclosure, Defendant states that it is a citizen of Minnesota. See Defendant's Disclosure at 2. Because this action is between a citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States domiciled abroad, and as explained in the Jurisdictional Order, quoted above, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action. Because there is no other apparent basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this trip-and-fall case, see Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 5), filed March 10, 2025; Defendant Target Corporation's Notice of Removal (Doc. 1), filed March 7, 2025, the action is due to be remanded.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval
2025.
County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of that Court.
2. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close the file and terminate any remaining motions and deadlines as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 30th day of April,
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
lc33 Copies to: Counsel of Record Clerk, Fourth Judicial Circuit