Carlson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DAYLE VINCE CARLSON, ET AL., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00813-JHC 8

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 STATE FARM CASUALTY INSURANCE 11 COMPANY,

12 Defendant. 13

14 Defendant removed this action based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 1. The notice of 15 removal states that “Plaintiffs are residents of Yakima County, Washington,” while “Defendant 16 State Farm is an Illinois corporation with headquarters located in Bloomington.” Id. at 2 17 (emphasis added). But diversity jurisdiction is based on the citizenship of the parties, not their 18 residences. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Plaintiffs’ 19 complaint and Pfizer’s notice of removal both state that Plaintiffs were ‘residents’ of California. 20 But the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency.”). 21 While the two concepts often overlap, they are not coextensive. See id. (“A person residing in a 22 given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.”). 23 24 l State Farm is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days regarding this Court’s 2 |{Jurisdiction. State Farm should clarify whether it asserts that Plaintiffs are citizens of 3 Washington state. State Farm’s response shall not exceed two (2) pages. 4 If the Court 1s satisfied that it has jurisdiction based on State Farm’s response, the Court 5 || will not issue a separate order confirming such a conclusion. 6 Dated this 16th day of August, 2023. 7 ¥. Char 9 John H. Chun United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24