Armstrong v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 6:16-cv-02028

Armstrong filed a state-court negligence action against Starwood in Florida; Starwood removed it to federal court.
Armstrong moves for remand contending Starwood's removal was untimely.
District Court analyzes removal timing under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) and (b)(3) given the amended rules for removals when citizenship is not stated in the initial pleading.
The complaint was silent on citizenship, so § 1446(b)(3) governs timeliness if information making the case removable appears in an amended pleading or other paper.
Starwood served interrogatories seeking Armstrong’s citizenship and relied on Armstrong’s responses to support removal; Armstrong argued pre-suit letters showed diversity, but those letters are not controlling for removal timing or citizenship.
Court ultimately denies remand but deems Starwood’s jurisdictional allegations deficient and capable of cure through an amended notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal under §1446(b)(3)?	Starwood's removal relied on initial pleading; untimely if treated under §1446(b)(1).	Since citizenship was not stated initially, §1446(b)(3) governs and allows removal within 30 days after an atas paper reveals removability.	Remand denied; removal timely under §1446(b)(3).
Sufficiency of diversity allegations establishing citizenship?	Deficient or ambiguous citizenship allegations render lack of complete diversity.	Responses to admissions plus other papers show diversity; defective allegations are curable.	Diversity allegations are defective but curable; Starwood may amend to state citizenship properly.

Lovern v. General Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 1997) (only grounds for removal in initial pleading trigger 30-day clock)
Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (supports §1446(b)(3) approach to removal timing)
Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322 (1888) (diversity jurisdiction requires affirmatively pleaded citizenship)
L. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (citizenship, not mere residence, controls diversity)
Corp. Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2009) (defective jurisdictional allegations may be cured)
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 1996) (diversity must exist at time of filing and removal)
D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (policy on diversity jurisdiction standards)