Scruggs v. City of Montgomery

• Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
• Decided: September 13, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00317
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

LAKEVA SCRUGGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 2:19cv317-MHT ) (WO) CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER Upon recent review of the case, it came to the court’s attention that the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to invoke this court's diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The allegations must show that the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from that of each defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The plaintiff's complaint fails to meet this standard in two ways. First, it provides the “residence" rather than the “citizenship” of plaintiff Lakeva Scruggs. An allegation that a party is a “resident” of a State is not sufficient to establish that a party is a “citizen” of that State. , 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th

Cir. 2013) (“Residence alone is not enough.”) (citation omitted); , 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish

diversity for a natural person.”).1 Second, the complaint does not allege the citizenship of defendant City of Montgomery, a municipal corporation. “A public entity or political

subdivision of a state, unless simply an ‘arm or alter ego of the State,’ ... is a citizen of the state for diversity purposes.”

, 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing , 411 U.S. 693, 717-18 (1973) (internal citations omitted)).” While the Alabama

1 “Citizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. ... And domicile requires both residence in a state and ‘an intention to remain there indefinitely....’” , 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (quoting , 293 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1258 (11th Cir. 2002)) (internal citation omitted) citizenship of the defendant city seems apparent, in the interest of eliminating any possible future

question as to jurisdiction, the plaintiff should affirmatively plead the city’s citizenship. In this case, the political subdivision is a corporation, so plaintiff should also meet the requirements for

pleading the citizenship of a corporation. To invoke jurisdiction based on diversity in a case in which a corporation is a party, it is necessary to allege distinctly and affirmatively all the States by which

the corporation has been incorporated the State in which the corporation has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c);

, 600 F.2d 15, 16 and n.1 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).2

2. In , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. *** It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court that the plaintiff has until September 27, 2021, to amend the complaint to allege jurisdiction sufficiently, 28 U.S.C. § 1653; otherwise this lawsuit shall be dismissed without prejudice.

DONE, this the 13th day of September, 2021.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE