Neely v. Target Corporation
3:16-cv-01081
| M.D. Fla. | Sep 6, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Stacey Neely sued Target Corporation in Florida state court; Target removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Target's Notice of Removal alleged complete diversity and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- Target relied on the Complaint's allegation that Neely “resided in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida” to establish Neely’s citizenship.
- The Court reviewed the pleadings and found residence allegations insufficient to establish a natural person's citizenship for diversity purposes.
- Because domicile (citizenship), not residence, determines a natural person's citizenship, Target failed to allege facts necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction.
- The Court sua sponte ordered Target to file additional information by September 26, 2016, to prove diversity jurisdiction (burden on removing party).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has diversity jurisdiction | Neely implicitly asserts Florida residence (no explicit citizenship allegation in complaint) | Target contends Neely’s alleged residence in Duval County shows citizenship for diversity purposes | Held: Residence allegation is insufficient; defendant must prove plaintiff’s domicile/citizenship to establish diversity |
| Whether residence allegation suffices to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction | (no separate affirmative argument from Neely in record) | Removal notice relied on Complaint’s residence statement to establish diversity | Held: Citizenship requires domicile, not mere residence; removal deficient |
| Who bears burden to establish diversity on removal | N/A | Target, as removing party, bears burden to show jurisdiction by preponderance of evidence | Held: Removing party must allege facts demonstrating jurisdiction and may be ordered to supplement record |
| Whether court may raise jurisdictional defect sua sponte | N/A | N/A | Held: Court must inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and may require supplementation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkland v. Midland Mortg. Co., 243 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must ensure they have subject-matter jurisdiction).
- Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (court obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte).
- Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466 (11th Cir. 1997) (identifies bases for federal court jurisdiction, including diversity).
- Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1994) (complaint must allege citizenship, not mere residence, to establish diversity).
- McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002) (domicile standard for determining citizenship; burden on party invoking diversity).
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (domicile is distinct from residence).