Walden v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation, 1:18-cv-00097

Plaintiff Jeffrey John Walden ("JJ Walden") sued Liberty-related entities in Colorado state court alleging an accident; defendants removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendants claimed Walden was a Wyoming resident (citing his Wyoming P.O. box) and thus diversity jurisdiction existed.
The notice of removal named multiple Liberty entities and also stated one named entity may not exist; filings contained inconsistent corporate names/spellings.
The district court raised subject-matter-jurisdiction concerns sua sponte and noted the removing parties bear the burden to establish jurisdiction.
The court explained domicile (not residency or mailing address) determines citizenship for diversity purposes and the removal allegations were insufficient to establish Walden’s domicile.
The court ordered defendants to show cause by a deadline why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists	Walden’s complaint did not assert federal jurisdiction; implicit position is lack of federal jurisdiction	Defendants asserted diversity jurisdiction because Walden is a Wyoming resident (mailing address) and parties are diverse	Court held defendants failed to adequately allege plaintiff’s domicile; mailing address insufficient to establish citizenship for diversity purposes
Whether removal is proper given ambiguous defendant identities	N/A (Plaintiff challenged via remand motion potential)	Defendants included multiple Liberty entities and noted one named entity may not exist; did not clarify corporate identities	Court noted inconsistent/unclear party identities and remand shows risk; ordered defendants to show cause to justify removal rather than proceed on present record

Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289 (10th Cir. 1980) (courts must satisfy themselves of subject-matter jurisdiction at every stage)
Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2005) (federal courts may not proceed absent assurance that jurisdiction exists)
Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871 (10th Cir. 1995) (court has duty to raise and resolve jurisdiction even if parties do not)
Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2004) (party invoking federal jurisdiction bears burden of establishing it)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (procedural context regarding notice of removal standards)