Sanders v. Luminescent Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
8
ORDER denying 5 Motion to Remand. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(jna)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Denise Louise Sanders
v.
Case No. 14-cv-188-PB
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 141
Luminescent Systems, Inc., et al.
O R D E R
On March 14, 2014, Denise Louise Sanders sued Luminescent
Systems, Inc. and Tony LaFromboise in New Hampshire Superior
Court for wrongful termination, retaliation, sex discrimination,
and defamation.
state law.
She has based all of her claims exclusively on
On May 1, defendants removed the suit to this court.
Sanders moves to remand, contending that this court lacks
jurisdiction because (1) there is not complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties; and (2) the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000.
I.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
For diversity purposes, citizenship is equated with
domicile, which can be “established by demonstrating that the
individual is physically present in the state and has an intent
to remain indefinitely.”
Garcia Perez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d
348, 350 (1st Cir. 2004).
Such intent may be proven by evidence
of where an individual “exercises civil and political rights,
pays taxes, has real and personal property, has a driver’s or
other license, has bank accounts, has a job or owns a business,
attends church, and has club memberships.”
Rodríguez v. Señor
Frog’s de la Isla, Inc., 642 F.3d 28, 33 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing
Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48, 50 (1st Cir.
1992)).
No single consideration is dispositive, and “the
analysis focuses not simply on the number of contacts with the
purported domicile, but also on their substantive nature.”
Garcia Perez, 364 F.3d at 351.
The party invoking diversity
jurisdiction must prove domicile by a preponderance of the
evidence, id. at 350, either by alleging sufficient facts in the
notice of removal, by submitting additional materials of
evidentiary quality, or by referencing the complaint.
Valentin
v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001).
Sanders contends that LaFromboise’s assertion that he is
“residing” in Vermont is insufficient to establish his
citizenship there.
She states, without support, that
LaFromboise resided in Lebanon, New Hampshire while she was
employed by Luminescent Systems.1
1
In contrast, the defendants
Sanders does not allege where LaFromboise was residing at the
time suit was filed, which is the only relevant inquiry. See
2
have submitted a sworn statement from LaFromboise that he has
lived in Vermont since at least 1988, has raised his family
there, and has no intention of relocating to another state.
Doc. No. 6-2.
They have submitted evidence that he owns a home
and pays property taxes in Vermont, that his car is registered
in Vermont, and that he possesses a Vermont driver’s license.
Id.
Notwithstanding Sanders conclusory assertion to the
contrary, the defendants have presented sufficient evidence to
establish that LaFromboise is a citizen of Vermont.
II.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
A defendant seeking removal must prove the amount in
controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.
Amoche v. Guar.
Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 50 (1st Cir. 2009).
When the amount in controversy is disputed, courts require more
than a bare allegation such as that included in defendants’
notice of removal.
Doc. No. 1.
“However, in this Circuit, a
removal defendant can meet its burden by going outside the four
corners of the notice of removal.”
Mut. Real Estate Holdings,
LLC v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 10-cv-236-LM, 2010 WL 3608043, at
*4 (D.N.H. Sep. 13, 2010).
A removal defendant can meet its
burden by “alleging sufficient facts in its notice of removal,
Hall v. Curran, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 2010).
3
relying on the face of the complaint in the underlying case, or
. . . submit[ting] ‘summary-judgment-type’ evidence” regarding
the amount in controversy at the time of removal.
Id.
Sanders contends that the defendants have offered no
evidence to meet this burden.
Here, defendants submitted an
affidavit stating that Sanders’s employment was terminated on
September 12, 2012, and that at the time of her termination her
salary was $35,672 per year, with $18,916 per year in additional
benefits.
Doc. No. 6-1.
Sanders’ request for lost wages and
benefits over the nineteen month period from her termination to
the removal date thus exceeds $75,000.
There is consequently a
sufficient amount in controversy to invoke federal jurisdiction.
III.
CONCLUSION
Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to meet their
burdens.
Thus, I determine that the court has jurisdiction over
this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Sanders’ motion to
remand (Doc. No. 5) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
June 23, 2014
cc:
Linda B. Sullivan Leahy, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Rattigan, Esq.
4
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?