SOLEY
v.
TRUIST BANK F/K/A SUNTRUST BANK
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 failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship at the time of removal because the plaintiffs' domicile was not sufficiently pleaded.
Plaintiffs sued defendant in state court, and the defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal s…
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 Domicile Vs. Residence cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
This is a breach of contract case that Truist Bank removed based on diversity jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must inquire about jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).2 A defendant may remove a civil case from state court provided the case could have been brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal
330 F. 3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2003). Removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, and thus courts strictly construe removal statutes. See Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F. 3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Any doubt as to the presence of jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand. See
Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F. 3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001). Citizenship, for jurisdictional purposes, is the equivalent of one’s domicile, not residence. 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. Here, the Soleys citizenship is unclear. Although the Notice of Removal states that the Soleys are “domiciled in, and a citizen and resident of,” Florida
and Massachusetts (Doc. 1 at 3), the only basis for that statement is the amended complaint, which alleges that the Soleys “reside in” Florida and Massachusetts (Doc. 3 at 2). Residency is not sufficient, and domicile isn’t mentioned in the amended complaint. Thus, Truist has failed to meet its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal. Truist may supplement the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658. It is now ORDERED: Defendant must supplement the Notice of Removal to show why the Court should not remand this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by August 25, 2022. Failure to do so will result in this case being remanded without further notice. Entered in Fort Myers, Florida this August 11, 2022.
J ee Lyte £ salad” “ Kele C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010)
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 264 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Sammie Bonner Constr. Co., Inc. v. W. Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2003)