GREGORY
v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, 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 court held that the defendant's notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to adequately allege the plaintiff's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed suit in state court, and the defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant's notice of re…
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 Notice Of Removal cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “[B]ecause 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, Natasha Gregory, filed this case in state court on August 16, 2022. (See Doc. 1-1).
Defendant then removed it to this Court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 at 1-8).
Because Defendant has not sufficiently alleged diversity of citizenship, the Court cannot
determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant sufficiently states its own citizenship, noting that it is a citizen of both Delaware, where it is incorporated, and of Arkansas, where it has its principal place of business. (Doc. 1 at 2).
But as to Plaintiffs citizenship, Defendant states only that “[u]pon information and belief, Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida.” ([d.). “But alleging citizenship on ‘information and belief’ is insufficient.” Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Dev., LLC v. Sumday Vacations, LLC, Case No. 6:19-cv-982-Orl-37DCI, 2019 WL 10375473, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2019).
And “[rJesidence alone is not 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 diversity 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 and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom....” Id. at 1257-58 (alteration in original) (further internal quotation omitted) (quoting Mas v. Perry, 489 F. 2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974)).
That Plaintiff may be a resident of Florida does not establish that it is her domicile.
Thus, the Court cannot discern the citizenship of Plaintiff or whether the parties are diverse.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that no later than September 26, 2022,
Defendant shall file an amended notice of removal along with evidence establishing Plaintiffs citizenship. L- DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida; on-September (é_, 2022.
TT TS
JOHN ANTOON II
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)
- MAS v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)