Bayeh v. Crow, 2:24-cv-00616

Plaintiff Edgar Bayeh sued defendant Stephen E. Crow for breach of an oral contract regarding a $525,000 loan related to the purchase and resale of precious metals.
The funds were never repaid by Crow, leading to the cessation of communication and commencement of litigation.
Bayeh filed the lawsuit in Nevada state court; Crow removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction.
Bayeh moved to remand the case to state court, arguing both parties are Nevada citizens and thus diversity is lacking.
The central dispute centered on whether Crow was domiciled in Iowa (as he claimed) or Nevada (as Bayeh claimed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Domicile for diversity	Crow is a Nevada citizen, destroying diversity	Crow is an Iowa citizen, so diversity exists	Crow is domiciled in Nevada; diversity jurisdiction fails
Weight of evidence for domicile	Evidence of Nevada license, residence, business ties	Evidence of Iowa voter registration, past filings	Nevada ties prevail; insufficient evidence for Iowa
Effect of driver’s license	Nevada license indicates intent to reside	Still has Iowa commercial license	Nevada license is persuasive of Nevada domicile
Remand standard	Removal improper without complete diversity	Removal proper due to Iowa citizenship	Ambiguity resolved in favor of remand to state court

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (establishes limited federal jurisdiction and burden on removing party)
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (complete diversity required for removal)
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (strong presumption against removal jurisdiction)
Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors to establish domicile for diversity purposes)
Heinz v. Havelock, 757 F. Supp. 1076 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (objective evidence over self-serving declarations in domicile analysis)