Source: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180724_0002388.MFL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:12:30+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck And Co.
Brooks v. Sears, Roebuck And Co.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant.
ROY B. DALTON JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This cause comes before the Court for review of U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick's Report, recommending that the Court remand this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 15 (“R&R”).) Defendant objects. (Doc. 19.) On de novo review, the Court finds that the R&R is due to be adopted and this case remanded.
Finding Defendant's arguments unpersuasive, Magistrate Judge Irick issued his R&R concluding that Defendant had failed to carry its burden of proving the existence of complete diversity or the requisite amount in controversy. (See Doc. 15, pp. 7-9.) Defendant objected (Doc. 19), and the matter is now ripe.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The district court must consider the record and factual issues based on the record independent of the magistrate judge's report. Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. To guard against unwarranted expansion of this jurisdiction in diversity cases, the parties must be completely diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In the removal context, the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction exists. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001).
Defendant argues that the R&R erroneously concluded that it did not sufficiently allege complete diversity. (Doc. 19, pp. 9-10.) Reiterating its position that residency is prima facie evidence of domicile, which equates to citizenship, Defendant submits the Notice sufficiently alleged Plaintiff's Florida citizenship. (Id. at 10.) Defendant is wrong. Residence alone is insufficient to demonstrate a person's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013); see also Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.”). As Defendant provided no other evidence to support Plaintiff's citizenship, it has failed to establish complete diversity.
Although Defendant disingenuously suggests that Plaintiff's refusal to respond to its discovery requests prevented it from suppling additional information (Doc. 19, p. 4 n.1), the Court finds this argument unavailing. Defendant, not Plaintiff, bears the burden of establishing the parties' citizenship. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Surely public records exist that could have supported Defendant's domicile contention, had it cared to search. See, e.g., Akkan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 1:16-cv-1999-WSD-LTW, 2016 WL 11260335, at *1 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 16, 2016) (setting forth the factors a court considers in making a domicile determination including, property records, voter registration, employment records, and vehicle registration).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.