Rhonda McNutt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association

• Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

RHONDA MCNUTT, individually, PLAINTIFF and on behalf of all others similarly situated

v. Civil No. 1:26-cv-19-HSO-RPM

FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN DEFENDANT ASSOCIATION

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF RHONDA MCNUTT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT PROPERLY PLEADING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION The Court, sua sponte, considers its subject-matter jurisdiction and concludes that Plaintiff Rhonda McNutt (“Plaintiff”) has not adequately alleged diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). As Plaintiff’s counsel is well-aware from our sister district’s conclusion in Gulley v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. #1 of Tangipahoa Par., No. CV 25-830-SDD-EWD, 2025 WL 3296305, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 26, 2025), Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] does not adequately allege even minimal diversity. I. DISCUSSION “Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, parties must make ‘clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations’ in their pleadings.” MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988)). “The burden to establish jurisdiction is on the party invoking it.” Gulley, 2025 WL 3296305, at *1 (citing New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321,

327 (5th Cir. 2008)). “CAFA greatly expands jurisdiction over interstate class action lawsuits.” Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 569 (5th Cir. 2011). “CAFA grants the federal courts original jurisdiction to hear interstate class actions where: (1) the proposed class contains more than 100 members; (2) minimal diversity exists between the parties (i.e., at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different

states); (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; and (4) the primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other governmental entities.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (5)); see also Gulley, 2025 WL 3296305, at *1 (same). Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] alleges that the proposed class encompasses more than 100 members, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. Compl. [1] at 3. But the Complaint [1] fails to establish the citizenship of either party. Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] alleges

“Defendant is headquartered and routinely conducts business in the State where this District is located.” Id. But if Defendant is a corporation, citizenship is not properly established without alleging both the corporation’s principal place of business and its place of incorporation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Neeley v. Bankers Tr. Co. of Tex., 757 F.2d 621, 634 n.18 (5th Cir. 1985). Turning to Plaintiff McNutt, she alleges that she “was a resident and citizen of the State of Mississippi.” Compl. [1] at 4. For obvious reasons, this would destroy diversity of citizenship between the parties because Plaintiff’s Complaint [1]

alleges that Defendant is “headquartered . . . in the State where this District is located,” Mississippi. See id. at 3. Second, in an attempt to salvage minimal diversity, the Complaint [1] alleges that “at least one other Class Member is a citizen of a state different from Defendant.” Id. But the Complaint [1] has not identified any other class member or alleged that a putative class member is a citizen of a specific state other than Mississippi. Minimal diversity requires more of

a showing. “Plaintiff must identify another class member and his/her citizenship or allege that there is a putative class member who is domiciled in a specific state other than [Mississippi] as supported by some evidence.” Gulley, 2025 WL 3296305, at *3 (citing Jolla v. Acadia Health, LLC d/b/a Just Kids Dental, No. 23-1370 (M.D. La.)). But of course, Plaintiff’s counsel should be well aware of this. Plaintiff’s counsel was counsel in Gulley. And in Gulley, Plaintiff’s counsel included the

identical minimal diversity statement as the one included here. See Gulley, 2025 WL 3296305, at *2. Simply alleging that “at least one other Class Member is a citizen of a state different from Defendant,” was insufficient two months ago and remains insufficient now. Id. at 2-3. II. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, on or before February 4, 2026, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint which adequately

alleges diversity of citizenship and subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to do so may result in this case being dismissed without prejudice, and without further notice. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 21st day of January, 2026. s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE