Felicia Cirlos v. AGTI Transport, Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: September 17, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00964
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

FELICIA CIRLOS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-CV-0964-JKP

AGTI TRANSPORT, INC., and JOSE GUTIERREZ,

Defendants.

ORDER Defendant AGTI Transport, Inc. (“AGTI”) removed this action on August 17, 2020, al- leging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). Alt- hough AGTI properly alleges the citizenship of Plaintiff (Texas) and the individual defendant, Jose Gutierrez (California), they merely state that the corporate defendant does not share citizen- ship with Plaintiff. Furthermore, the original petition filed in state court does not allege the citi- zenship of any party. With respect to the corporate defendant, the jurisdictional facts are insuffi- cient. For diversity purposes, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). And the Supreme Court has clarified that the phrase, “principal place of business,” means the “corporation’s ‘nerve center.’” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80-81 (2010). In this case, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have alleged the state of incorporation or the principal place of business for AGTI. As the party seeking removal, AGTI “bears the burden of establishing that federal juris- diction exists and that removal was proper,” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (Sth Cir. 2002). To carry that burden, it must provide the jurisdictional facts as to its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. The Fifth Circuit has long held that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the federal courts “have the responsibility to consider the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte if it is not raised by the parties and to dismiss any action if such jurisdiction is lacking.” Giannakos v. M/V Bravo Trader, 762 F.2d 1295, 1297 (Sth Cir. 1985). Rule 12(h)(3) provides in full: “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject- matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Given the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332, the Court’s responsibility for determin- ing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and the express direction of Rule 12(h)(3), the Court directs Defendant AGTI to cure the noted deficiencies in the jurisdictional facts by filing a “Notice of Jurisdictional Facts” in which it affirmatively states its place of incorporation and principal place of business. It shall file such Notice on or before October 15, 2020. Until this jurisdictional deficiency is cured, the Court finds good cause to delay issuing any scheduling or- der. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2). SIGNED this 17th day of September 2020. soni rile ANALY than, ON K. PULLIAM "y TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE