Clark v. Coleman et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez. (al)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WILLIAM FRED CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:25-cv-0222 KRS/DLM

SHAWNA COLEMAN and
NOVA MD, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff filed this action on March 4,
2025, citing diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 ¶ 8.) “Federal courts ‘have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from
any party,’ and thus a court may sua sponte raise the question of whether there is subject matter
jurisdiction ‘at any stage in the litigation.’” 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459
F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)).
Having considered Plaintiff’s complaint and the applicable law, the Court finds that the complaint
fails to allege facts necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction.
Federal “district courts . . . have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between
. . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff, as the “party invoking diversity
jurisdiction[,] bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nova Mud is “a New Mexico corporation. Its
corporate headquarters are in Hobbs, New Mexico.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 4.) A corporation’s citizenship is
determined by its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a New Mexico corporation but fails to affirmatively allege its
principal place of business. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010) (concluding that the
principal place of business is the nerve center of a corporation, not simply a main office where its
board meetings are held).
The Complaint also asserts that the individual defendants are “residents” of New Mexico.
(Doc. 1 ¶¶ 4–8.) “An individual’s residence is not equivalent to his domicile and it is domicile that
is relevant for determining citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781
F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Thus, there are insufficient facts to establish
the individual defendants’ citizenship. Thus, Plaintiff fails to assert facts sufficient to establish
Defendant’s citizenship.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended Complaint to
properly allege facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, if such allegations can be made
in compliance with the dictates of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Additionally, Plaintiff lists
Defendant’s name in the Complaint as Nova Mud, Inc., but it appears in the caption shown on
CM/ECF as Nova MD, Inc. Plaintiff shall correct Defendant’s name to appear correctly in both
places.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court
may dismiss this lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

_______________________________________
DAMIAN L. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3