MUTAN v. RUSINOUSKI, 2:22-cv-01810

Plaintiff Sabreen Mutan sued multiple defendants in Pennsylvania state court after an underlying incident; defendants Leonid Rusinouski, Iaroslav Transportation, Inc., and SIT Expeditors, Inc. removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction.
Removing defendants bore the burden to show complete diversity and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
The notice of removal equated "residence" allegations in the complaint with citizenship/domicile for the plaintiff and individual defendant Rusinouski.
The notice described several defendants as generic "business entit[ies]" and listed office addresses but did not allege whether those entities were corporations, where they were incorporated, or their principal places of business.
Two named defendants (Capital Transport, Inc. and Allstate/Fire & Casualty Insurance Company) did not join the removal; unanimity among defendants was not shown.
The court concluded the removing parties failed to plead facts establishing citizenship and lacked unanimous consent, and therefore remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal established diversity of citizenship	Remand: removing parties failed to prove citizenship and jurisdiction	Removal notice asserted parties are citizens of different states based on "residence" and office addresses	Remand: Removing defendants did not meet burden to establish citizenship/domicile
Whether allegations of "residence" establish domicile/citizenship	Residence alone insufficient; remand required	Residence statements in complaint equal citizenship for removal purposes	Held that residency allegations are insufficient to establish citizenship/domicile
Whether listing business addresses establishes corporate citizenship	Businesses not shown to be corporations or their states of incorporation/principal place of business; remand	Removed parties treated "business entit[ies]" and office addresses as proof of corporate citizenship	Held that without allegations of incorporation and principal place of business, corporate citizenship was not proven
Whether removal was proper without unanimous consent of defendants	Non-removing defendants did not consent; removal defective	Removing defendants proceeded without consent from Capital and Allstate	Held removal improper for lack of unanimity; all defendants must join or consent

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (establishes federal courts' obligation to police subject-matter jurisdiction)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (placing burden on removing defendant to show jurisdictional facts in notice of removal)
GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29 (residence allegations insufficient to establish domicile for diversity)
Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (individual citizenship depends on domicile)
McNair v. Synapse Grp. Inc., 672 F.3d 213 (distinguishing residency from citizenship allegations)
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (corporate citizenship is determined by state of incorporation and principal place of business)
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126 (proponent of jurisdiction bears the burden of proof)
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (all defendants must join or consent to removal for unanimity requirement)