TURNER v. WALMART STORES INC et al
ORDER directing Defendants to file amended notice of removal properly pleading citizenship no later than 1/23/2012. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 1/09/2012. (nbp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WALMART STORES INC. and
WALMART STORES EAST LP,
Civil Action No.
The complaint in this personal injury action was initially filed in the State
Court of Lowndes County on November 22, 2011. Defendants filed a Notice of
Removal (Doc. 1) on December 28, 2011, asserting diversity jurisdiction in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the basis for removal.
Consistent with this Court’s responsibility to examine the subject matter
jurisdiction of the cases that come before it, the Court has reviewed the Notice of
Removal to determine whether the diversity jurisdictional requirements in this
case have been satisfied. See Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255,
1261 (11th Cir. 2000). After review, the Court has determined that the
jurisdictional requirements for removal have not been met.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Morrison, 228 F.3d at
1260-61. Article III of the United States Constitution sets the outer boundaries of
judicial jurisdiction, and Congress is vested with the discretion to determine the
scope of subject matter jurisdiction within that broad constitutional grant. Id. at
1261. Congress can “give, withhold, or restrict such jurisdiction at its discretion,
provided it be not extended beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution.”
Univ. of South Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a case that was
originally filed in state court if the defendant can demonstrate federal subject
matter jurisdiction. For removal to be proper, the removing party must establish
federal subject matter jurisdiction at the time the notice of removal is filed.
Leonard v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). In
reviewing notices of removal, removal statutes should be strictly construed, and
in the face of a conflict, all uncertainties should be resolved in favor of remand.
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994).
Federal subject matter jurisdiction can be based upon either a question of
federal law or diversity of citizenship. In this case, Defendants assert that
removal is proper based on diversity of citizenship. Diversity jurisdiction is
established through the fulfillment of two statutory requirements: 1) complete
diversity between the parties, and 2) an amount in controversy that exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Here, Defendants have demonstrated that the requirement of amount in
controversy has been satisfied. In their Notice of Removal, Defendants state that
Plaintiff has alleged medical expenses in the amount of $58,652.94, and Plaintiff
also seeks general damages and attorney’s fees and costs. Further, Defendant
notes that “prior to filing suit, Plaintiff demanded $400,000.00 in settlement of her
claims.” (Doc. 1, p. 2.) This is sufficient to establish that the amount in
controversy requirement has been met. However, the citizenship of the parties is
still in question.
A party must distinctly and affirmatively plead citizenship. Toms v. Country
Quality Meats, Inc., 610 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1980). A corporation is a citizen
of any State in which it was incorporated and of the State of its one principal
place of business. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). The Supreme Court of the United
States has determined that the “principal place of business” refers to the place
where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporation’s activities. Hertz v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1186 (2010).
Alternatively, for purposes of a diversity case, a limited partnership is a citizen of
each state in which any of its partners, limited or general, are citizens. Rolling
Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 (11th
Regarding natural persons, citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that
must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity. Taylor v. Appleton, 30
F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). A complaint merely alleging residency, as
opposed to state citizenship or domicile, may be insufficient to invoke diversity
jurisdiction. Delome v. Union Barge Line Co., 444 F.2d 225, 233 (5th Cir. 1971).
Domicile is not always the same as residence, as a person may reside in one
place, but be domiciled somewhere else. Thomas v. Thomasville Toyota, 623
F.Supp.2d 1378, 1381 (M.D.Ga. 2008) (citation omitted).
In this case, Defendants state in their Notice of Removal that Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP are “Delaware business entities, with
their primary business offices in Arkansas.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 3.) Defendants further
state that Plaintiff is “a resident of the State of Georgia.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 4.) These
allegations are insufficient to meet the pleading requirements for proper diversity
jurisdiction because only the residency of the parties has been asserted, not
Having concluded that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction have not
been met, the Court orders Defendants to file an amended notice of removal that
properly pleads the citizenship of the parties no later than Monday, January 23,
2012. If Defendants fail to properly amend their Notice of Removal, this Court will
have no choice but to dismiss the case for want of proper jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED, this the 9th day of January, 2012.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR 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?