Hancock v. Target Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

CHERYL HANCOCK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25-cv-251-MMH-SJH

TARGET CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On March 13, 2025, the Court directed the parties to file documentation to support the Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction over this action. See Jurisdictional Order (Doc. 9). In particular, the Court directed Plaintiff to state both her national and State citizenships, explaining that: While alienage jurisdiction may exist between a citizen of a foreign nation and a citizen of a State, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), when a United States citizen is domiciled in a foreign nation, diversity jurisdiction is not proper between that individual and a citizen of a State. See Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202, 1203–05 (M.D. Fla. 1991), aff’d sub nom. Las Vistas Villas v. Petersen, 13 F.3d 409 (11th Cir. 1994); Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. and Proc. § 3602 n.11 (3d ed. 2024) (collecting cases). Id. at 3. Each party has now filed a disclosure statement that addresses its citizenship in conformity with the Court’s Jurisdictional Order. See Defendant, Target Corporation’s Disclosure Statement Under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 (Doc. 11; Defendant’s Disclosure), filed April 3, 2025; Plaintiff, Cherly [sic] Hancock’s Disclosure Statement Under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 (Doc. 20; Plaintiff’s Disclosure), filed April 28, 2025. In her disclosure, Plaintiff states that she is a

United States citizen domiciled in Mexico. See Plaintiff’s Disclosure at 2. In its disclosure, Defendant states that it is a citizen of Minnesota. See Defendant’s Disclosure at 2. Because this action is between a citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States domiciled abroad, and as explained in the Jurisdictional

Order, quoted above, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action. Because there is no other apparent basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this trip-and-fall case, see Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 5), filed March 10, 2025; Defendant Target Corporation’s Notice of

Removal (Doc. 1), filed March 7, 2025, the action is due to be remanded. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to the

Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of that Court. 2. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close the file and terminate any remaining motions and deadlines as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 30th day of April, 2025.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

1¢e33 Copies to: Counsel of Record Clerk, Fourth Judicial Circuit