SABREEN MUTAN v. LEANID RUSINOUSKI, IAROSLAV TRANSPORTATION, INC., SIT EXPEDITORS, INC., CAPITAL TRANSPORT, INC., ALLSTATE / FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and JOHN DOE TBD TBD
NO. 22-1810
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 23, 2022
Savage, J.
CIVIL ACTION
Savage, J. May 23, 2022
In removing this action from the state court, defendants Leonid Rusinouski, Iaroslav Transportation, Inc. (“Iaroslav“), and SIT Expeditors, Inc. (“SIT“)1 contend that the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to
A defendant removing a case from state court under
In their notice of removal, the removing defendants contend that there is complete diversity between the plaintiff and all defendants.2 To demonstrate the state of citizenship of each party, they repeat the allegations in the complaint. Specifically, with respect to the plaintiff‘s citizenship, the removal notice avers: “Plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. . . . Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania.”3
Regarding the defendants’ citizenship, the notice states: “Plaintiff alleges that all other named defendants reside in states other than Pennsylvania.”4 The notice further avers that Rusinouski, the individual defendant, “is identified by plaintiff‘s complaint as . . . residing at [an address in] Orlando, FL. . . . Therefore, [Rusinouski] is a citizen of
As the proponent of diversity jurisdiction, the removing defendants have the burden of establishing jurisdiction. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 150 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Yet, they do not allege sufficient facts showing the citizenship of any party. For purposes of establishing jurisdiction, a natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the state where he is domiciled. Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015). Residency in a state is insufficient to establish citizenship of an individual. GBForefront, L.P., 888 F.3d at 35 (citing McNair v. Synapse Grp. Inc., 672 F.3d 213, 219 n.4 (3d Cir. 2012) (allegations pertaining solely to a litigant‘s “residency,” as opposed to “citizenship” or “domicile,” are “jurisdictionally inadequate in [a] diversity of citizenship case)). A corporation is a citizen of both the state of its incorporation and the state where its principal place of business is located. GBForefront, 888 F.3d at 34 (citing Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010)).
Relying solely on the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff “reside[s]” in Pennsylvania and Rusinouski “resid[es]” in Florida, the removing defendants mistakenly conclude that this is where these parties are domiciled. Because residency in a state is
Nor have they alleged facts establishing the citizenship of Iaroslav, SIT, Capital, or Allstate. Although the removal notice correctly states that a “corporation‘s citizenship is based on its state of incorporation and principal place of business,”7 neither the complaint nor the notice alleges that these defendants are corporations. The complaint merely describes them as “business entit[ies],” and provides office addresses. Without averring any additional facts about these “business entities,” the removing defendants assume without support that they are “corporate defendants.”8 Without any averments about where they are incorporated and have their principal places of business, we cannot ascertain their states of citizenship.
Additionally, the removing defendants have not obtained consent from Capital and Allstate to remove the action. All defendants must “join in or consent to the removal of the action.”
Because we cannot determine the citizenship of any party, we are unable to determine that there is diversity of citizenship. In addition, without the consent of all defendants, the removal was improper. Therefore, because we do not have subject-matter jurisdiction, we shall remand this case.
Savage, J.