Cavitt et al v. The Plumbing & Rooter Company, LLC et al (MAG2)
ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that the removing party has until November 4, 2015, to amend the notice of removal to allege jurisdiction sufficiently, 28 U.S.C. § 1653; otherwise this lawsuit shall be remanded to state court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/28/2015. (kh, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH CAVITT and RACHEL
THE PLUMBING & ROOTER
COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a
Plumbing, a Georgia
Corporation, and DIRECT
ENERGY US HOME SERVICES,
INC., an Ohio Profit
Corporation registered to
do business in Alabama,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
jurisdiction based on diversity, the notice of removal
must distinctly and affirmatively allege each party's
McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511
plaintiff is different from that of each defendant.
U.S.C. § 1332; see also 2 James Wm. Moore, et al.,
Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 8.03[b] at 8-10 (3d ed.
The notice of removal fails to meet this standard.
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.
Delome v. Union Barge Line
Co., 444 F.2d 225, 233 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404
U.S. 995 (1971).
3612 (3d ed.).
See 13E Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. §
This is particularly true where the
party is a member of the military, as the complaint
alleges plaintiff Joseph Cavitt was during the events
at issue in the case.
See 13E Fed. Prac. & Proc.
against the involuntary loss of a domicile for purposes
of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.”).
It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court that the removing party has until November 4,
jurisdiction sufficiently, 28 U.S.C. § 1653; otherwise
this lawsuit shall be remanded to state court.
DONE, this the 28th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?