Blocker Farms of Florida, LLC v. Buurma Properties, LLC

Filing 57

ORDERED that Blocker Farms, within fourteen days, is to produce information showing Cale Blocker's domicile on the date if filed this action. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 3/24/2015. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
BLOCKER FARMS OF FLORIDA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
6:13-cv-68

V.

BUURMA PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants.
[SJI1OI*1

The Court twice has requested
information from Blocker Farms of Florida,
Inc. ("Blocker Farms") in order to aid its
jurisdictional determination, and Blocker
Farms twice has timely complied with the
Court's requests. But Blocker Farms's latest
submission raises, and leaves unanswered,
additional questions regarding the Court's
jurisdiction. Importantly, Blocker Farms's
documentation of the citizenship of the
parties reveals inconsistency regarding Cale
Blocker's citizenship. Though Blocker
Farms consistently has represented that Cale
Blocker, Blocker Farms's member/manager,
"is a resident and citizen of the State of
Florida," ECF Nos. 54-2 at 2; 56 at 2, it also
appears that Cale Blocker resided in Georgia
as recently as September 30, 2010, ECF No.
56-2at3.
The Court of Appeals remanded this
case for the Court "to determine if diversity
existed at the time this action was filed."
ECF No. 52 at 1. Blocker Farms's
conclusory allegation of Florida residency
simply is not sufficient to establish that Cale

Blocker was, at the time Blocker Farms filed
this action, a 4rMc eItk)rI thbij,urpose
risdiction.
of determining diversity
enou ahfeo
"Residence
oses.
See
citizenship for AeAg 0
Travagilo v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d
1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). Rather,
"[c]itizenship is equivalent to 'domicile"
and "[a] person's domicile is the place of his
true, fixed, and permanent home and
principal establishment, and to which he has
the intention of returning whenever he is
absent therefrom . . . ." McCormick v.
Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399
(5th Cir. 1974) (quotation omitted)). Thus,
"[d]omicile . . . generally requires two
elements: (1) physical presence in a state;
and (2) the intent to make the state one's
home." Tucker v. Thomasville Toyota, 623
F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1381 (M.D. Ga. 2008)
(emphasis added); see also Miss. Band of
Choctaw Indians v. HolyJield, 490 U.S. 30,
48 (1989).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS
Blocker Farms, within fourteen days, to
produce information showing Cale
Blocker's domicile on the date it filed this
action. To be clear, domicile is the place of
a person's fixed home and a person may
"have only one domicile." Molinos Valle
Del Cibao, C. por. A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d
1330, 1346 (11th Cir. 2011).
This 1./day of March 2015.

B. AWANT'EDENFIELD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTR$CT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA