Coombs v. Mitchell

M.D. Florida

Coombs v. Mitchell

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided January 31, 2023·No. 5:23-cv-00070·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION SILKE COOMBS, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 5:23-cv-70-JA-PRL KATHRYN DEVRIES MITCHELL, NICHOLAS MAYABB, and K. RYAN MEEKS, Defendants.

ORDER This case is before the Court on review of Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. 1-14 at 3-6). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “[BJecause 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, Silke Coombs, filed this case in state court on December 28, 2022. (Doc. 1). Defendants then removed it to this Court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1-14 at 3-6). But

Defendants have not sufficiently alleged diversity of citizenship. In the Notic of Removal, Defendants list the states of residence of Plaintiff and each of th three Defendants. (See Doc. 1-14 at 5). However, “[rlesidence alone is no 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 diversit; 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 anc principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom... .” Id. at 1257-58 (alteration in original (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, □□□□ (5th Cir. 1974)). That a party may be a resident of a certain state does not establish that state as his or her domicile. Thus, the Court cannot discern the citizenships of any of the parties or whether the parties are diverse. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that no later than February 17, 2023, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal identifying the citizenship— not merely the residence—of each party. = DONE and ORDERED on January yo 2028) / fo

JOHN ANTOON TT /United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION SILKE COOMBS, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 5:23-cv-70-JA-PRL KATHRYN DEVRIES MITCHELL, NICHOLAS MAYABB, and K. RYAN MEEKS, Defendants.

ORDER This case is before the Court on review of Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. 1-14 at 3-6). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “[BJecause 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, Silke Coombs, filed this case in state court on December 28, 2022. (Doc. 1). Defendants then removed it to this Court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1-14 at 3-6). But

Defendants have not sufficiently alleged diversity of citizenship. In the Notic of Removal, Defendants list the states of residence of Plaintiff and each of th three Defendants. (See Doc. 1-14 at 5). However, “[rlesidence alone is no 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 diversit; 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 anc principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom... .” Id. at 1257-58 (alteration in original (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, □□□□ (5th Cir. 1974)). That a party may be a resident of a certain state does not establish that state as his or her domicile. Thus, the Court cannot discern the citizenships of any of the parties or whether the parties are diverse. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that no later than February 17, 2023, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal identifying the citizenship— not merely the residence—of each party. = DONE and ORDERED on January yo 2028) / fo

JOHN ANTOON TT /United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Coombs v. Mitchell, (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Coombs v. Mitchell (Coombs v. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related