Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-2959
08-30-2021
DAVID BESSING v. UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Mark L. Hornsby, U.S. Magistrate Judge
David Bessing (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil action in state court for damages arising out of an insurance dispute. United Property & Casualty Company removed the case based on an assertion of diversity jurisdiction, which puts the burden on it to set forth specific facts that show complete diversity of citizenship of the parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000. The notice of removal appears sufficient with one exception.
The notice of removal alleges that Plaintiff “resides in the State of Louisiana.” Plaintiff's state court petition includes a similar allegation of Louisiana residency. But it is domicile rather than mere residency that decides citizenship for diversity purposes, and “an allegation of residency alone ‘does not satisfy the requirement of an allegation of citizenship.'” Midcap Media Finance, LLC v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019), quoting Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1984). A person may reside in multiple states simultaneously, but “[a]n individual who resides in more than one State is regarded, for purposes of federal subject-matter (diversity) jurisdiction, as a citizen of but one State.” Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 126 S.Ct. 941, 951 (2006). That is the state in which the person is domiciled. Id.; Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc, 334 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).
United Property must file, no later than September 15, 2021, an amended notice of removal that specifically alleges the state in which Plaintiff is domiciled.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED.