Opinion ID: 71316
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Diversity of Citizenship Allegations

Text: The plaintiffs assert that the amended notice of removal is deficient because it fails to allege the citizenship of Mr. Menendez, the deceased. The federal diversity jurisdiction statute states that, in determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, “the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). The amended notice of removal alleges only the citizenship of Marla Menendez, the personal representative of Mr. Menendez’s estate, and not Mr. Menendez. At oral argument and in their briefing before the district court, the plaintiffs conceded that Mr. Menendez was a citizen of Texas at the time of his death.6 In any event, no one contends that Mr. Menendez was a citizen of the same state as any defendant other than Carter & Burgess. Thus, any defect in the amended notice of removal is purely technical and the plaintiffs waived any objections to the notice of removal by failing to file timely a proper motion to remand. In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d at 1523. To remedy the technical defect, we grant the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their notice of removal 5 While a survival action is brought on behalf of the deceased, the cause of action and any attendant recovery belongs to the heirs of the deceased or the deceased’s legal representative or estate. See TEX . CIV . PRAC . & REM . CODE § 71.021 (stating that the survival action “survives to and in favor of the heirs, legal representatives, and estate of the injured person”). Thus, the survival action and wrongful death actions, while separate causes of action, are closely related and the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not improper. 6 We treat the plaintiffs’ statement in their briefing before the district court that Mr. Menendez was a citizen of Texas as a binding judicial admission. See City Nat’l Bank v. United States, 907 F.2d 536, 544 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting that the court may “appropriately treat statements in briefs as binding judicial admissions of fact”); see also Ruiz v. Allstate Ins. Co., 295 F. App’x 668, 671-72 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (finding improper joinder where plaintiff admitted in his briefing before the district court that his claims against the nondiverse defendant lacked merit). 8 Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 No. 09-40993 contained in their appellate response brief and hold that the district court did not err in concluding that the facts supporting diversity jurisdiction between the plaintiffs and the out-of-state defendants were apparent from the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653 (stating that defective allegations of jurisdiction “may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts”) (emphasis added); see also Carlton v. Baww, Inc., 751 F.2d 781, 783 (5th Cir. 1985) (granting leave on appeal to amend the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint and affirming the decision of the district court on the merits). Defendants are ordered to file an amended notice of removal in the district court stating Mr. Menendez’s citizenship within thirty days of this opinion.