Strong v. Paradise, et al.,
| Lyna Strong |
| Greyhound Lines Inc and Raymond Paradise |
| 3:2023cv02847 |
| December 22, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Torts/Pers Inj: Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Lyna Strong. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Clay, Brennan) |
| Filing 12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed (Clay, Brennan) |
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Before the Court is Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Leave from Local Counsel Requirement Under Local Civil Rule 83.10(a) (the "Unopposed Motion") (Doc. No. 7). The Court has carefully considered the Unopposed Motion and finds leave is appropriate here. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Unopposed Motion. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/16/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 10 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Greyhound Lines Inc. (Clerk QC note: Affiliate entry indicated). (Hamm, Gene) |
| Filing 9 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Greyhound Lines Inc. Amendment to #1 Notice of Removal,,,,,,. First Amended Notice of Removal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) "A" - Index of State Court Filings, #2 Exhibit(s) "B" - State Court Docket, #3 Exhibit(s) "C" - Plaintiff's Original Petition, #4 Exhibit(s) "D" - Notice of Removal, #5 Exhibit(s) "E" - Supplemental Citizenship Evidence (Strong), #6 Exhibit(s) "F" - Supplemental Citizenship Evidence (Greyhound), #7 Exhibit(s) "G" - Supplemental Citizenship Evidence (Paradise), #8 Exhibit(s) "H" - Certificate of Interested Persons, #9 Exhibit(s) "I" - Civil Cover Sheet, #10 Exhibit(s) "J" - Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet) (Hamm, Gene) |
| Filing 8 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Lyna Strong. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Clay, Brennan) (Main Document 8 replaced on 2/4/2024 to flatten pdf) (axm). |
| Filing 7 MOTION Leave from Local Counsel Requirement re 2 Order,, filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave from Local Counsel Requirement) (Hamm, Gene) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Defendant Greyhound removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 1 at 1-2. In cases where subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S. C. 1332(a), Rule 7.1(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that each party's disclosure statement "name--and identify the citizenship of--every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). Defendant Greyhound timely filed its Certificate of Interested Persons/Disclosure Statement (Doc. No. 1-4), but it does not contain the citizenship disclosure statement required by Rule 7.1(a)(2). Assuming Defendant Greyhound amends its Notice of Removal to properly allege complete diversity of the parties' citizenship, see Doc. No. 5, Defendant Greyhound shall file an amended certificate of interested persons/disclosure statement, which includes the required statement of Rule 7.1(a)(2), by January 22, 2024.Plaintiff shall take notice of the citizenship disclosure statement required by Rule 7.1(a)(2) in filing her certificate of interested persons. See L. Civ. R. 81.2 ("Within 21 days after the notice of removal is filed, the plaintiff shall file a separately signed certificate of interested persons that complies with LR 3.1(c) or 3.2(e)."). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/8/2024) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC ORDER: "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court has an obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31 (1990); see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) ("[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level."). A federal court has no power to adjudicate claims where subject matter jurisdiction does not exist and, consequently, must remand the action. Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998); accord 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (in action removed from state court, federal court must remand case any time before final judgment if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. ("Greyhound") removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). See Doc. No. 1 at 1-2. Accordingly, the parties' citizenship must be completely diverse in that one of the plaintiffs cannot share the same state citizenship as one of the defendants. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003). Defendant Greyhound alleges the following in its Notice of Removal: "As set forth in the State Court Action, [Plaintiff] Strong is a resident and citizen of the State of Georgia; Greyhound is a resident and citizen of the State of Texas, and Defendant Raymond Paradise is a resident and citizen of the State of Missouri." Id. at 2. In her state court Petition, Plaintiff alleges she "is an individual resident of Avondale Estates Atlanta, DeKalb County, GA." Doc. No. 1-3 at 3. Plaintiff further alleges that "Defendant Raymond Paradise is an individual resident of Wentzville, Saint Charles County, MO" and Defendant Greyhound "is a corporation doing business in Texas and.... has its principal office in the State of Texas". Id.Defendant Greyhound failed to properly allege the citizenship of any party to this action. "When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship must be 'distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). First, as for the individual parties, "citizenship and residence, as often declared by this court, are not synonymous terms." Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648 (1878). "For natural persons, 1332 citizenship is determined by domicile, which requires residency plus an intent to make the place of residency one's permanent home." SXSW, L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 568-69 (1915)); accord Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2007) ("Domicile requires the demonstration of two factors: residence and the intention to remain."). Defendant Greyhound improperly conflates Plaintiff's residency allegations as sufficiently alleging citizenship for diversity purposes. While the state where a party has a driver's license may be evidence of their domicile, see Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996), Plaintiff does not include the state in which she has a driver's license. See Doc. No. 1-3 at 2 ("[Plaintiff's] driver's license number is *****611".). For these reasons, Defendant Greyhound does not properly allege the citizenship of Plaintiff or of Defendant Paradise for diversity purposes.Further, Defendant Greyhound fails to allege its own citizenship properly. For diversity purposes, a corporation qualifies as a citizen "of any State by which it has been incorporated and the State where it has its principal place of business. " 28 U.S.C. 1332(c); see J.A. Olson Co. v. City of Winnona, 818 F.2d 401, 404 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92 (2010) (corporation's principal place of business is its "nerve center, "meaning "the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities."). Plaintiff does allege that Defendant Greyhound "has its principal office in the State of Texas". Doc. No. 1-3 at 2. Assuming this allegation to be true, Defendant Greyhound fails to allege the state of its incorporation, which is also determinative of its citizenship. Accordingly, Defendant Greyhound's own citizenship has not been properly alleged.Because Defendant Greyhound fails to demonstrate complete diversity of the parties' citizenship, the Court cannot determine on this removal record that subject matter jurisdiction exists. The party seeking the federal forum bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Defendant Greyhound may amend its Notice of Removal to properly allege each party's citizenship by January 15, 2024. If Defendant fails to amend or to do so sufficiently, this case will be remanded without further notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (in action removed from state court, federal court must remand case any time before final judgment if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/8/2024) (chmb)
|
| Filing 4 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (kcr) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/22/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Local Civil Rule 83.10(a) requires the appearance of local counsel where the attorney of record for a party does not reside or maintain their principal office in this district. By January 12, 2024, Defendant Greyhond Lines Inc., shall file the entry of appearance of local counsel satisfying the requirements of Local Civil Rule 83.10(a). Failure to do so may result in sanctions being imposed for failure to comply with an order of the Court. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/22/2023) (chmb)
|
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by Greyhound Lines Inc. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-14268049) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) "A" - Index of State Court Pleadings, #2 Exhibit(s) "B" - State Court Docket Sheet, #3 Exhibit(s) "C" - Plaintiff's Original Petition, #4 Exhibit(s) "D" - Certificate of Interested Parties, #5 Exhibit(s) "E" - Civil Cover Sheet, #6 Exhibit(s) "F" - Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet) (Hamm, Gene) (Attachment 5, 6 flattened on 12/26/2023) (kcr). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
