PAIS
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., 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 it was uncertain about its subject-matter jurisdiction due to the addition of a new defendant and ordered the parties to brief the issue.
Plaintiffs initially filed a personal injury suit in state court, which was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. An amended compl…
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)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
Ruben Pais and Susan Pais, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No. 21-20824-Civ-Scola v. )
) Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Fence ) City, Inc., Defendants. )
Order Regarding Jurisdiction This case was recently assigned to this Court upon the recusal of United States District Court Judge Federico A. Moreno. (Order of Rec., ECF No. 66.) Upon an independent review of the record, the Court is uncertain whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and directs the parties to file a joint notice or memorandum, as described below, in that regard.
Plaintiffs Ruben and Susan Pais, spouses, initially filed this personalinjury case in state court, seeking damages from Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., for injuries they say Mr. Pais sustained in a Home Depot store in 2020. (Compl., ECF No. 1-2.) Home Depot thereafter removed the case, to this Court, under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, contending that the parties are completely diverse. (Def.’s Not. of Removal ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) According to Home Depot, it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. (Id.) In contrast, says Home Depot, the Paises are either citizens of New York or Florida.1 (Id.) Since Home Depot is not a citizen of either state, regardless of whether the Paises are citizens of New York or Florida, the then existing parties to this case were diverse.
Now, however, the Paises have filed, with leave of Court, an amended complaint. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 59.) That complaint names a second defendant, Fence City, Inc., that the Paises describe as “a Florida Corporation doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.” (Id. ¶ 4.) As a consequence, without knowing whether the Paises are Florida, versus New York, citizens, the Court is unable to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this case. Additionally, the Paises have failed to set forth Fence City’s principal place of business, further muddying the jurisdictional waters.
Based on the record before it, then, the Court is unable to discern whether the parties are completely diverse. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to file a joint notice or memorandum, on or before July 13, 2022, setting forth, at a minimum, the following: (1) The states of incorporation and principal places of business of the two corporate parties; (2) The citizenships (not just the residencies) of the two individual parties;? and (3) If the Paises claim citizenship in New York, they must then also address what public records indicate is a homestead exemption claimed on a real property that appears to be owned by Mr. Pais in Miami-Dade County.
If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on a joint notice or memorandum, the Defendants must file their own memorandum on or before July 13, 2022, and the Paises must respond thereto on or before July 18, 2022. If the parties are unable to assure the Court of its jurisdiction, this case may be remanded back to state court.
Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on July 5, 2022. 7 Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge