Davis et al v. Sabato et al

Filing 15

ORDER re 14 Amended Notice of Removal. The Removing Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is remanded to the District Court of Beckham County, State of Oklahoma. The Clerk of Court is directed to take all actions necessary to effect the remand. Signed by Judge Scott L. Palk on 11/25/2024. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RUSSELL DAVIS, CHRISSANN DAVIS,
and KENNETH W. WILLIAMS, II,
Individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTONIO SABATO JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-24-938-SLP
(District Court of Beckham
County, Case No. CJ-2023-121)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Amended Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 14] (Amended
Notice) filed by Defendants Keith Chester, Holland Robinson, Tommy Snyder and The
Broadway Agency (the Removing Defendants).

The Amended Notice was filed in

response to the Court’s prior Order [Doc. No. 12]. In that Order, the Court addressed
deficiencies in the Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1] as to allegations of diversity
jurisdiction. The Court made clear in that Order that absent sufficient allegations in the
filing of any amended notice, this matter may be remanded for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
The Amended Notice remains deficient. Although deficiencies exist as to both
individual parties and entity Defendants, the Court focuses its discussion on deficiencies
as to the entity Defendants.

Discussion
A defendant may remove a case to federal court if the case is one over “which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under
28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal 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.” Section 1332 require complete diversity,
and the “plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant[.]”
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989).
The Amended Notice states: “Holland Robinson, LLC is a Texas company, and its
members are citizens of Texas.” Am. Not. at 4. In support of this statement, the Removing
Defendants cite “Exhibit A-4 at 4.” See id., footnote 19.1
Exhibit A-4 at 4 consists of the following:

See Doc. No. 14-4 at 4.

1

Exhibit A-4 contains no pagination. The Court cites to the ECF pagination. It appears the
Removing Defendants intend to cite Doc. No. 14-4 at 5.

2

The next page of Exhibit A-4, contains this additional information:

See id. at 5.
The Removing Defendants cite this Exhibit without analysis or discussion. As made
clear in the Court’s prior Order, “‘the citizenship of any non-corporate artificial entity is
determined by considering all of the entity’s members.’” Order at 2-3 (quoting Siloam
Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015)). The
information contained in Exhibit A-4 identifies – as both managing members and directors
– three individuals: (1) Keith Chester; (2) Rachel Lopez; and (3) Michelle Robinson.
Rachel Lopez is a non-party to this action. The Removing Defendants have failed
to provide any information with respect to the citizenship of Ms. Lopez. Without such
information, the Court cannot determine the citizenship of Defendant Holland Robinson,
LLC.
Michelle Robinson is also listed in Exhibit A-4 as a managing member and director
of Holland Robinson, LLC. Ms. Robinson is a party to this action. With respect to her
citizenship, the Amended Notice states: “Defendant Michelle Robinson is a citizen of
3

Texas. She currently resides in Texas.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added; citing Exhibit A-13 at
5 and Exhibit A-14). But the information in support of these statements is insufficient to
show Ms. Robinson’s citizenship at either the time the state-court petition was filed or at
the time of removal.2 As the Court previously instructed, “[a]n individual’s residence is
not equivalent to his domicile[,] and it is domicile that is relevant for determining
citizenship.”). See Doc. No. 12 at 2 (quoting Siloam Springs, 781 F.3d at 1238).3
The information cited includes Ms. Robinson’s name as “associated with” an
address in Johnson County, Texas, for the limited time period August 2024 through
September 2024. See Doc. No. 14-13 at 5.4 But the “owners” of the property are identified
as persons other than Ms. Robinson. See id. The Removing Defendants further cite
information contained on Facebook postings for “Michelle Halverson” with a web address
of https://www.facebook.com/Michelle.B.BroquezRobinson. See Doc. No. 14-14. The
Removing Defendants fail to address the content of these Facebook postings or explain
how the postings demonstrate Ms. Robinson is a citizen of, i.e., domiciled in, Texas.

“[T]he relevant time period for determining the existence of complete diversity is the time of the
filing of the complaint.” Siloam Springs, 781 F.3d at 1239. And in removed cases, there is also a
statutory requirement that diversity of citizenship exist at the time of removal. Grupo Dataflux v.
Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 574 (2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)).
2

“To establish domicile in a particular state, a person must be physically present in the state and
intend to remain there.” Smith v. Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254, 1259-60 (10th Cir. 2006). Thus, an
individual can reside in one place, but be domiciled in another.
3

4

Exhibit A-13 contains its own pagination. A checkmark appears on page 4 (ECF page 5). Thus,
it appears to the Court that this is the information the Removing Defendants rely upon. To the
extent the Removing Defendants are pinpoint citing page 5 (ECF page 6) there is nothing contained
therein that alters the Court’s analysis.

4

Keith Chester is the third individual identified in Exhibit A-4 as a managing member
and director of Holland Robinson, LLC. Mr. Chester is also a party to this action and one
of the Removing Defendants. The Amended Notice states: “Keith Chester is an individual
domiciled in and a citizen of Tennessee.” Id. at 4. The Removing Defendants attach no
evidentiary support for this statement.

Elsewhere in the Removing Defendants’

submissions, Keith Chester is identified as a managing member of Defendant, The
Broadway Agency, LLC. See Exhibit A-5 at 2. A Texas address is listed there. See id.5
Additionally, the information provided about Holland Robinson LLC shows that it
was last updated in December 2023. The Notice of Removal in this action was filed in
September 2024. Thus, the Court has no information before it with respect to the
membership interests at the time of filing the Notice of Removal.
As to the Removing Defendant, The Broadway Agency, LLC, the Amended Notice
states: “The Broadway Agency, LLC, is a Texas company, and its members are citizens of
Texas.” Am. Not. at 4 (citing Exhibit A-5 at 4). Although the Amended Notice refers to
“members” in the plural, it does not state the names of those members. The referenced
Exhibit identifies only Keith Chester as a member. The address listed next to his name is
a Texas address (presumably the entity’s address). See Doc. No. 14-5 at 5. And although
the Removing Defendants assert that the members of The Broadway Agency, LLC are
“citizens of Texas” as noted, they contradictorily assert elsewhere, without proof, that Mr.
Chester is a citizen of Tennessee. Am. Not. at 4. To this end, it is concerning to the Court

5

Citations are to the Court’s ECF pagination.

5

that in their original Notice of Removal, the Removing Defendants represented,
collectively, that “they are citizens of Tennessee” – to include the entity Defendants See
Doc. No. 1 at 4. Contradictorily, in the Amended Notice of Removal – filed just a few
months later – the Removing Defendants now represent that the entity Defendants are
citizens of Texas.
The Court could go on citing deficiencies as to the citizenship allegations included
in the Amended Notice (those identified are not exhaustive), but deems it unnecessary to
do so. The Removing Defendants have submitted in excess of 450 pages of exhibits in an
effort to establish the citizenship of the parties to this action. They pinpoint cite only
approximately 40 pages. Notably, information about the citizenship of Defendants Keith
Chester, Holland Robinson, LLC and The Broadway Agency, LLC, is information within
the possession and control of the Removing Defendants. It seems to the Court a much
more straightforward approach would have been for the Removing Defendants to submit
affidavits to identify the membership interests of the entity Defendants and the citizenship
of the respective members at the time of the filing of the petition and at the time of removal.
Instead, the Removing Defendants have submitted a maze of information, without
discussion or analysis, that consequently requires conjecture and speculation to be applied
in order to draw any conclusions regarding citizenship. Alternatively they have made bald
unsupported assertions of citizenship. Put another way, the position of the Removing
Defendants in detailing for the Court facts establishing citizenship is scant more than “see
Google for more information.” The Court declines to backfill the Removing Defendants
insufficient analysis.
6

Finally, it is relevant to the Court’s analysis to point out that the entity Removing
Defendants have failed to submit their required disclosures in this action. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 7.1(a)(2); see also LCvR 7.1.1. This failure further obfuscates the Court’s ability to
determine the citizenship of the Removing Defendants.
For all these reasons, the Court finds the Removing Defendants have failed to meet
their burden of establishing diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson,
733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,
we presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal
jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remands
this action to state court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is remanded to the District Court
of Beckham County, State of Oklahoma. The Clerk of Court is directed to take all actions
necessary to effect the remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2024.

.

7