Motylinski v. Meade

• Court: District Court, Virgin Islands
• Decided: October 18, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

MICHAEL MOTYLINSKI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:22-cv-0028 v. ) ) RYAN C. MEADE and QUINTAIROS, PRIETO,) WOOD & BOYER, P.A., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, or Alternatively, to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery of Defendant Ryan Meade’s Domicile. (ECF No. 7.) Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 20.) A defendant may remove a civil action to federal court, including based on diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, “if the plaintiff could have originally filed the Rowland v. Bissell Homecare, Inc. action in federal court” and the defendant has the burden to establish federal jurisdiction. , 73 F.4th 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2023). On a challenge to removal Id. jurisdiction, courts review the allegations in the complaint and notice of removal to determine whether federal jurisdiction exists. Defendants commenced this action by a Notice of Removal, asserting that Defendant Ryan C. Meade (“Meade”) is a citizen of Georgia and Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. (“QPWB”) is a citizen of Florida. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff challenges the citizenship of both Meade and QPWB arguing that Defendants have failed to submit sufficient evidence in order for the Court to conclude that they are not citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands for purposes of 1 diversity jurisdiction.

1 In support of removal, Defendants submitted Meade’s declaration, dated April 14, 2022, in which he asserts that he has been a citizen of Georgia since January 1, 2022. (EC F No. 1-2 ¶ 3.) In opposition to the Plaintiff’s Case N2o. 32:22-cv-0028 Order Page of

After careful consideration and review, the Court will allow the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery to present relevant evidence on the issue of subject matter jurisdicOtiRoDn.E ARcEcoDrdingly, it is hereby that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, or AlternativeDlyE,N ItEoD ,Cionn pdaurctt JurisGdRicAtiNonTaElD D,iisnco pvaerrty of Defendant Ryan Meade’s Domicile, ECF No. 7, is , and ORDERE D ; it is further DENIED without prejudice; that Plaintiff’s motion to remand is it is furtherO RDERED GRANTED. SHALL that Plaintiff’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery is no later tThhaen p Daretcieesm ber 31 b, 2e 0a2llo3w; ed to conduct jurisdictional discovery to be completed ORDERED it is further that if, after the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff seeks to maintain its argument thatn doi vlaetresirt yth oafn c iJtaizneunasrhyi p1 7is, 2no0t2 p4r.esent in this case, Plaintiff shall file an appropriate motion Any responses and replies shall be filed in accordance with the deadlines set forth by the applicable rules. Date: Robert A. Molloy ROBERT A. MOLLOY O ctobe r 18, 202 3 /Csh/i_ef Judge _________