Adusumilli v. Jackson et al
| Venkateswar Adusumilli |
| Joe Alfred Jackson, Placidio Vego Huerta and C&P Demolition LLC |
| 3:2025cv01540 |
| June 16, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Torts/Pers Inj: Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER OF REMAND - Before the Court is an Agreed Motion for Remand, filed on June 23, 2025. The parties have reached agreement to remand this case to the Dallas County District Court based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.It is, therefore, ORDERED that this case is hereby REMANDED to the 298th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 6/24/2025) (chmb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/24/2025: #1 Additional Page(s) Remand Letter) (ndt).
|
| Filing 6 Agreed MOTION to Remand filed by C&P Demolition LLC, Placidio Vego Huerta, Joe Alfred Jackson (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Agreed Order of Remand) (Gorbach, Lindsay) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Because Defendants invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires an additional disclosure statement. In all diversity matters, each party's disclosure statement must "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) (emphasis added). Defendants filed their Certificate of Interested Persons (Doc. No. 3) but it fails to disclose any Defendant's citizenship.Within 3 days of filing an amended notice of removal, Defendants shall file an amended certificate of interested persons that also includes the required disclosure statement of EACH Defendant's citizenship. For Defendant C&P Demolition, LLC, this will include naming and listing the citizenship of each of its members. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 6/17/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). Further, the party seeking diversity jurisdiction must "distinctly and affirmatively" allege all parties' citizenship to assert diversity jurisdiction. Seguin v. Remington Arms Co., L.L.C., 22 F.4th 492, 495 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988)). Defendants Joe Alfred Jackson, Placido Vego Huerta, and C&P Demolition, LLC (together, "Defendants") removed this case to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction. Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. The Court has sua sponte reviewed the Notice of Removal (the "Notice") and finds that Defendants failed to "distinctly and affirmatively" allege each party's citizenship as required to properly establish complete diversity.Defendants' allegations that Defendants Jackson and Huerta are "residents" of Texas are insufficient to establish their citizenship for diversity purposes. Doc. No. 1 at 2, ¶¶ 5-7. The Fifth Circuit has consistently reaffirmed that "[a]n allegation of residency alone 'does not satisfy the requirement of an allegation of citizenship.'" SXSW, L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1984)); accord MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019); Neely v. Bankers Tr. Co. of Tex., 757 F.2d 621, 634 n.18 (5th Cir. 1985); Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954). The citizenship of a natural person "is determined by domicile, which requires residency plus an intent to make the place of residency one's permanent home." SXSW, L.L.C., 83 F.4th at 407 (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, as alleged in the Notice, the residency of Defendants Jackson and Huerta is insufficient to properly assert their citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. Defendants' allegation that Defendant C&P Demolition LLC "is a Texas limited liability company with members primarily throughout Texas" is also insufficient. Doc. No. 1 at 2, ¶ 8. For diversity purposes, the citizenship of a limited liability company ("LLC") is determined by the citizenship of all of its members. SXSW, L.L.C. , 83 F.4th 405 at 407. Further, the allegations must identify each member of the LLC (through every layer, if relevant) and distinctly and affirmatively allege the citizenship of each member. MidCap Media, 929 F.3d at 310. Defendants fail to identify any of the LLC members or the members' citizenship. Thus, Defendants fail to properly allege the citizenship of Defendant C&P Demolition LLC for diversity purposes. Finally, Defendants specifically cite to Plaintiff's Original Petition as support for their allegation that Plaintiff "is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia". Doc. No. 1 at 2, ¶ 5. On review of Plaintiff's Original Petition, the Court cannot locate any allegation therein which refers to the State of Plaintiff's residence or citizenship, or to the State of Virginia at all. Given the inconsistency between Defendants' citizenship allegation and the support they cite, the Court finds that Defendant's Notice fails to "distinctly and affirmatively" allege Plaintiff's citizenship as required. As the party seeking the federal forum, Defendants bear the burden of establishing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Defendants' Notice fails to "distinctly and affirmatively" allege the citizenship of any of these parties and, thus, fails to establish complete diversity. See Seguin, 22 F.4th at 495. Defendants may file an amended notice of removal to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified in this Order by June 24, 2025. If Defendants fail to amend, or fail to do so sufficiently, the Court will remand this case without further notice. 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); see Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007) ("The removal statute is therefore to be strictly construed, and any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand.").The Court also notes that, despite the deficient citizenship allegations, it appears from the Notice that Defendants may be forum defendants for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2). See Doc. No. 1-9 (Defendants Original Answer filed in state court); Doc. No. 1-6 (citation returned executed as to Defendant Jackson). The forum-defendant rule is a procedural requirement, not jurisdictional. In re 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire, 558 F.3d 378, 392 (5th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff is reminded that any challenge to removal on the basis of a procedural defect must be brought within the time proscribed by 28 U.S.C. & sect; 1447(c). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 6/17/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by C&P Demolition LLC, Placidio Vego Huerta, Joe Alfred Jackson. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Gorbach, Lindsay) |
| Filing 2 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. (knb) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by Placidio Vego Huerta, Joe Alfred Jackson, C&P Demolition LLC. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-15580398) 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 Cover Sheet, #2 Cover Sheet Supplement, #3 Exhibit(s) A - Index State Court File, #4 Exhibit(s) A-1 State Court Docket, #5 Exhibit(s) A-2 Plaintiff's Original Petition, #6 Exhibit(s) A-3 Citation Joe Alfred Jackson, #7 Exhibit(s) A-4 Affidavit Axis Brain and Back Institute, #8 Exhibit(s) A-5 Affidavit Axis Brain and Back Institute, #9 Exhibit(s) A-6 Defendants' Original Answer) (Gorbach, Lindsay) (Attachment 1 & 2 replaced on 6/17/2025) (knb). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
