Sires v. Fitts, 1:20-cv-01002

Plaintiff Brandon Sires and Defendant Lauren Fitts are college students; Sires sued Fitts in Lorain County Court alleging she told others he had raped her, bringing claims for defamation, IIED, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Sires says he served Fitts by certified mail on April 7, 2020; Fitts contends the mail went to a cousin's address where she has never lived and that she did not receive the complaint until May 2020.
Fitts removed the action to federal court on May 8, 2020, asserting diversity jurisdiction and that removal was timely once she learned of the suit.
Sires moved to remand and for sanctions, arguing removal was untimely, procedurally defective (missing state-court papers), and that federal diversity jurisdiction did not exist.
The district court found service to the cousin’s address was not reasonably calculated to notify Fitts, concluded removal was timely and not procedurally defective, and determined diversity jurisdiction (different domiciles and amount in controversy) was satisfied; remand and sanctions were denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal / Service	Sires: he served Fitts April 7 by certified mail; removal (May 8) was untimely.	Fitts: she never received service at that address; she first learned of suit in early May and removed within 30 days.	Court: service to cousin was defective; removal was timely from when Fitts learned of suit.
Procedural sufficiency of removal notice	Sires: removal failed to include copies of all state-court process, pleadings, and orders.	Fitts: she included all documents actually served on her; missing documents were never served in state court.	Court: no procedural defect; removal contained all papers Fitts had.
Diversity jurisdiction — domicile	Sires: both parties are Ohio residents, so no diversity.	Fitts: she is domiciled in California despite attending school in Ohio; parties are domiciled in different states.	Court: parties have different domiciles (Fitts California); diversity satisfied so long as Sires is not domiciled in California.
Amount in controversy	Sires: damages likely under $75,000.	Fitts: plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive relief; defamation/IIED in Ohio can exceed $75,000.	Court: plaintiff’s claimed damages and Ohio precedents make it more likely than not that amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Mason v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C., 842 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2016) (defines citizenship as domicile for diversity jurisdiction)
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (domicile principles for citizenship)
Eastman v. University of Michigan, 30 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 1994) (student domicile analysis)
MacDonald v. General Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1997) (student’s domicile may remain parents’ home while attending school)
Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071 (6th Cir. 1990) (citizenship and domicile equivalence)