FLORES v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA INC (2025)

ORDER

Having reviewed the jurisdictional allegations in the notice of removal, the court questions its jurisdiction sua sponte. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541, 548 (2019). To avoid dismissal, the defendants will need to file an amended notice of removal that alleges facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted).

Two statutes authorize the lion's share of federal-court litigation: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases that arise under federal law, and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which establishes federal courts' “diversity” jurisdiction. See Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 26 (2025). The latter provision requires an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The notice of removal seeks to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of the parties' citizenships. Dkt. 1 at 2. Section 1332 requires “complete diversity.” MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019). In other words, “all persons on one side of the controversy [must] be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.” Id.

“Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, parties must make ‘clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations’ in their pleadings.” Id. (quoting Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988)). The requisite allegations differ based on the type of party.

A natural person is domiciled, and therefore a citizen, where he or she has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home. Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954). “[A]n allegation of residency alone ‘does not satisfy the requirement of an allegation of citizenship.’ ” MidCap, 929 F.3d at 313 (quoting Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)); see Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424 (1939) (explaining that citizenship of a natural person requires not only “[r]esidence in fact” but also “the purpose to make the place of residence one's home”).

Under those authorities—which, once again, demand “clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations,” Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259—the notice of removal's jurisdictional allegations, Dkt. 1 at 3, are deficient. They do not allege facts necessary to support the conclusion that the plaintiffs are citizens of Texas. The defendants rely on the plaintiffs' original state-court petition to allege citizenship. Dkt. 1 at 3. But the state-court petition alleged only residency, not citizenship, as to the plaintiffs. Dkt. 3 at 1.

Those defects may not be fatal. “Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended.” 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Leave to do so “is to be granted liberally unless the movant has acted in bad faith or with a dilatory motive, granting the motion would cause prejudice, or amendment would be futile.” Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah's Operating Co., 587 F.3d 314, 322 (5th Cir. 2009); see Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 990 (5th Cir. Unit A Feb. 1981) (stating that, under Rule 15(a), leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice requires” and that § 1653, like Rule 15(a), should be liberally construed). “Courts may also consider judicial efficiency ․ and effective case management ․ before granting a motion to amend.” Jebaco, Inc., 587 F.3d at 322 (citations omitted).

On balance, those considerations favor granting the defendants leave to amend their notice of removal for the limited purpose of alleging facts necessary to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. Further, because the court expects parties to assist it in assessing jurisdiction, the plaintiffs should provide the defendants with any information they may need to sufficiently amend. The parties should therefore confer as needed.

It is ORDERED that, within 14 days of the entry of this order, the defendants file an amended notice of removal that alleges facts necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction. If no such amendment is possible, the defendants should so notify the court, such that the case may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of November, 2025.

Bill Davis, United States Magistrate Judge