KAMAU v. JOHNSON, 4:25-cv-00233

Plaintiff Diop Kamau filed a lawsuit in Florida state court alleging six state law causes of action, including fraud and defamation, against several defendants.
Defendant Jonathan Johnson, representing himself, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, asserting diversity jurisdiction and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
The complaint states Kamau resides in Florida and alleges that defendants are residents of other states, but did not clearly plead all parties' residency.
Court records and judicial notice revealed two key defendants (Thiagarajah and Bellwether Law, PLLC) are actually Florida residents/entities.
The court identified the potential lack of complete diversity and questioned its subject-matter jurisdiction, ordering the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of Diversity Jurisdiction	Alleges all other defendants are out-of-state	Removal proper based on alleged diversity	No diversity if any defendant is Florida resident
Timeliness of Removal	–	Removal filed within 30 days of complaint receipt	Notice of removal was timely
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Federal)	No assertion; raises state law claims only	Asserts federal jurisdiction based on diversity	Court must independently verify jurisdiction
Remand to State Court	May seek remand if diversity is lacking	Opposes remand, seeks federal adjudication	Show cause order issued; remand possible

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (courts have an independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Grp., LLC, 420 F.3d 1234 (complete diversity required; no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as a defendant)