Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03855/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03855-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Betsy Hall, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Randy Wayne Eads, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-03855-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue are Plaintiffs Betsy Hall and Wade Hall’s Motion to Remand to State 

Court (Doc. 11, Mot.), to which Defendants Randy Wayne Eads, Joyce Eads, and Eads 

Enterprises Incorporated filed a Response (Doc. 12, Resp.), and in support of which 

Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 13, Reply), as well Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ 

Reply (Doc. 14). 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On December 16, 2014, Defendant Randy Eads and Plaintiff Betsy Hall were 

involved in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendants in 

Maricopa County Superior Court and Defendants removed the action to this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Diversity of Citizenship). Plaintiffs now move to remand 

this action alleging that Defendants are domiciled in Arizona, thereby negating diversity 

jurisdiction. 

Case 2:16-cv-03855-JJT Document 15 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

For purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, persons are deemed to be 

citizens of the state in which they are domiciled. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 

F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A person is “domiciled” where he or she has “established a 

fixed habitation or abode in a particular place and [intends] to remain there permanently 

or indefinitely.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). While residency is a factor in determining a person’s citizenship for 

diversity jurisdiction purposes, the fact that a person resides in a given state does not 

necessarily determine one’s domicile. Id. (“Residence is physical, whereas domicile is 

generally a compound of physical presence plus an intention to make a certain definite 

place one’s permanent abode . . . . Residence is not an immutable condition of 

domicile.”). Instead, a “person’s domicile is [their] permanent home, where [they] reside 

with the intention to remain or to which [they] intend[] to return.” Id. (internal citation 

omitted). A mere averment, or even proof, of residency in a particular state is not an 

averment or proof of citizenship in that state for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. 

Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857-58. 

 When parties to litigation dispute citizenship based on a purported recent change 

in domicile, “additional principles of law apply.” Rice v. Thomas, 64 Fed. App’x 628 (9th 

Cir. 2003). These factors include: “current residence, voting registration and voting 

practices, location of personal and real property, location of brokerage and bank 

accounts, location of spouse and family, membership in unions and other organizations, 

place of employment or business, driver’s license and automobile registration, and 

payment of taxes.” Lew, 797 F.2d at 750. 

 A defendant seeking to remove a case to federal court carries the burden of 

establishing diversity jurisdiction, and “[a]ll doubts about federal jurisdiction should be 

resolved in favor of remand to state court.” In re Prempro Prod. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 

613, 620 (8th Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A plaintiff may seek to have a case 

remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the district court lacks 

Case 2:16-cv-03855-JJT Document 15 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The 

district court must remand the case if it appears before final judgment that the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

III. ANALYSIS 

 In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue Defendants were citizens of Arizona due almost 

solely to one fact: Defendants purchased property in Maricopa County, Arizona and 

declared to a notary public that the home was to be used as their “primary residence.” 

(Mot. at 2.) Defendants, on the other hand, present a multitude of evidence averring that 

they were and are citizens of Missouri. (Resp. at 2-3.) These include Defendants 

primarily residing in Missouri for 30 years—including at least 10 months a year 

currently—maintaining Missouri drivers’ licenses and bank accounts, filing taxes in 

Missouri, regularly attending church in Missouri, and lack of personal care or 

maintenance of their Arizona property. (Resp. at 2-3.) Defendants also serve on boards 

and committees in Missouri which require state citizenship, receive Social Security 

Disability payments in Missouri, obtain healthcare through the Affordable Care Act 

Missouri marketplace, and accept all bills—including those related to their Arizona 

property—at their Missouri home. (Resp. at 2-3.) Finally, Defendants each avow a static 

intent to remain in Missouri.1

 (Resp. at 3.) 

 Defendants admit that the affidavit of property value signed in March 2013 

identifies their Phoenix property as a “primary residence,” but contend that it was a 

mistake during the escrow process. (Resp. at 3.) Plaintiffs respond that this statement was 

made under oath, that Defendants took title to the property as “Community Property” 

(which Plaintiffs assert is available to Arizona residents but not Missouri residents), and 

that some consequences must flow from these attestations as “proper classification of 

residential property in this State is critical to determining education funding through 

property taxes.” (Reply at 3.) This may be true—some legal consequences may flow from 

 

1

 There is no dispute as to the corporate Defendant—Eads Enterprises, Inc.’s— domicile, as it is a foreign corporation incorporated in Missouri. 

Case 2:16-cv-03855-JJT Document 15 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiffs’ apparently false statement and there may be significance to the State when a 

residence is not properly classified. But those consequences do not include Defendants 

being domiciled in Arizona. For that to occur, Defendants must have an intent to remain 

in Arizona, which is belied by nearly all of the evidence available to the Court. See Lew, 

797 F.2d at 749. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

While Defendants may have a fixed residence in Arizona, the evidence presented 

illustrates that it is not their permanent residence. Defendants’ Arizona residence does not 

appear to be a full or even half-time home and all attestations to date affirm their intent 

and desire to maintain a Missouri primary residence and domicile. Because Plaintiffs 

have not established that Defendants were not still domiciled in and citizens of Missouri 

at the time this action was filed, there is diversity jurisdiction over this matter. 

 Defendants also have moved to strike Plaintiffs’ Reply (Doc. 13), arguing that it 

was untimely filed. (Doc. 14.) Because the Court finds for Defendants on the underlying 

Motion, regardless of Plaintiffs’ Reply, the Court will deny as moot Defendants’ Motion 

to Strike. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State 

Court (Doc. 11). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ 

Reply in Support of their Motion to Remand (Doc. 14) as moot. 

 Dated this 2nd day of February, 2017. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-03855-JJT Document 15 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 4