Collins, et al v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc.

Filing 48

OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING ACTION, by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/14/15. (pglov)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01559-MSK
SCOTT SAX, and
MICHAEL COLLINS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIRST CHOICE LOAN SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING ACTION
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte.
The Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Colorado District Court for Arapahoe
County, alleging common-law claims sounding in breach of contract and fraud, among others,
arising exclusively under state law. The dispute arises out of an arrangement by which the
Plaintiffs performed services for the Defendant in exchange for compensation determined
according to a specific formula. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has failed to correctly
apply that formula, and thus, have failed to pay them the appropriate compensation.
The Defendant removed the action to this Court, citing federal subject-matter jurisdiction
arising out of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, the Notice of
Removal infers that the Plaintiffs are citizens of Colorado, noting that the Complaint alleges that
they “reside in Arapahoe County.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (diversity must exist between
“citizens of different states”) (emphasis added); see Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Surety

Co., 781 F.2d 1223m 1238 (10th Cir. 2015) (“An individual’s residence is not equivalent to his
domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for determining citizenship,” but noting that residence
may be suggestive of citizenship). The Defendant is a citizen of New Jersey. As to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)’s requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $ 75,000, the Notice of Removal
states nakedly that this threshold is satisfied “considering the total relief sought by Plaintiffs in
this Complaint,” without further citation or elaboration.
As the party invoking federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the Defendant bears the burden
of establishing the requisite jurisdictional facts under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the Court indulges
in a presumption against federal jurisdiction. Salzer v. SSM Health Care of Oklahoma, 762 F.3d
1130, 1134 (10th Cir. 2014). Here, the Defendant has failed to come forward with sufficient
allegations of the Plaintiffs’ citizenship and the amount in controversy to satisfy the requirements
of diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, due to lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the
Court REMANDS the action to the Colorado District Court for Arapahoe County. The Clerk of
the Court shall transmit the record to the Clerk of the court in Arapahoe County, and shall close
this case.
Dated this 14th day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
Chief United States District Judge