Parsons v. Changco

M.D. Florida

Parsons v. Changco

DecidedSeptember 9, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-00742

StatusUnknown

This text of Parsons v. Changco (Parsons v. Changco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parsons v. Changco, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

VERNON BALLARD PARSONS, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:23-cv-00742-JLB-NPM MARIFE JOYNO CHANGCO,

Defendant. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This matter comes before the Court on an order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanding this case “for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of the parties to establish whether diversity jurisdiction exist[s] . . . .” (Doc. 39 at 3). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges diversity of citizenship because he is a United States citizen and Defendant a citizen of the Philippines. (Doc. 9 at 3). In its Order, the Eleventh Circuit noted that “the allegations in the amended complaint were insufficient to establish Parsons’s citizenship, because they stated only that he is a United States citizen and did not provide his state of citizenship or domicile.” (Doc. 39 at 3) (emphasis in original) (citing 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1332(a) (“[D]istrict courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions . . . between . . . citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . .”)); see Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202, 1204 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (“To be a citizen of a state within the meaning of the diversity provision, a natural person must be both a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state.”); Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (“For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff Vernon Ballad Parsons IIT is DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE on or before September 30, 2025, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reopen this case. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on September 9, 2025.

; fhe ALA iw. te JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

VERNON BALLARD PARSONS, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:23-cv-00742-JLB-NPM MARIFE JOYNO CHANGCO,

Defendant. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This matter comes before the Court on an order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanding this case “for the limited purpose of determining the citizenship of the parties to establish whether diversity jurisdiction exist[s] . . . .” (Doc. 39 at 3). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges diversity of citizenship because he is a United States citizen and Defendant a citizen of the Philippines. (Doc. 9 at 3). In its Order, the Eleventh Circuit noted that “the allegations in the amended complaint were insufficient to establish Parsons’s citizenship, because they stated only that he is a United States citizen and did not provide his state of citizenship or domicile.” (Doc. 39 at 3) (emphasis in original) (citing 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1332(a) (“[D]istrict courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions . . . between . . . citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . .”)); see Las Vistas Villas, S.A. v. Petersen, 778 F. Supp. 1202, 1204 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (“To be a citizen of a state within the meaning of the diversity provision, a natural person must be both a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state.”); Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (“For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff Vernon Ballad Parsons IIT is DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE on or before September 30, 2025, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reopen this case. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on September 9, 2025.

; fhe ALA iw. te JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Parsons v. Changco, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-changco-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack