JACOB MARK NAVIS v. PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES (2026)

ORDER

On April 27, 2026, defendant Onity Mortgage Corporation (described in the original complaint as “PHH Mortgage Services”) removed pro se plaintiff Jacob Navis's state-court action regarding his residential property to this court. Dkt. 1. The court ordered Navis to “replead as necessary to comply with the federal rules and this court's local rules,” Dkt. 4, which he did, Dkt. 5. His operative complaint joined the co-owner of the property, Ashley Nicole Navis, as a plaintiff. Dkt. 5 at 4. It added Neighbor to Neighbor Homes, LLC, the entity that acquired his property at a foreclosure sale, as a defendant. Id. And it removed the previously alleged federal causes of action, leaving diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the only basis to proceed in this court. Compare Dkt. 1-5 with Dkt. 5.

Alongside their operative complaint, the Navises filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to enjoin the state-court eviction proceedings associated with their property. Dkt. 6. As the removing party, Onity has entered an appearance, but Neighbor to Neighbor has not. This order explains next steps before the court will address the pending motion.

DISCUSSION

I. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Onity's notice of removal was based on federal-question jurisdiction and, alternatively, diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. But as noted, the operative complaint presents no federal question, so it appears that the case could remain in this court only if diversity jurisdiction exists. But the complaint's citizenship allegations, which are necessary to establishing diversity jurisdiction, are deficient. To avoid dismissal, the Navises will need to file a declaration or affidavit sufficient to establish complete diversity.

In addition to requiring an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (a requirement that the record already reflects is satisfied here, Dkt. 5 at 3, 12; see Farrell v. Hunt, 714 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. 1986)), § 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. at 313 (quoting McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)).

“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, 314 (quoting Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), and citing Robertson, 97 U.S. at 647, 651, as a cautionary example of a case in which “[t]he Supreme Court held that [record evidence of the plaintiff's residence] was insufficient to prove citizenship, reversed a final judgment, and ordered a new trial”); 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”).

A corporation is “a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). For that reason, “allegations regarding the citizenship of a corporation must set out the principal place of business of the corporation as well as the state [or states] of its incorporation.” Neeley v. Bankers Tr. Co. of Tex., 757 F.2d 621, 634 n.18 (5th Cir. 1985); see Coal City Cob Co. v. Palm Enters., Inc., No. 3:18-CV-0123-N, 2018 WL 3475594, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2018) (discussing the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) and the demise of the forum doctrine).

A limited liability company's citizenship is that of each of its members. Megalomedia Inc. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 115 F.4th 657, 659 (5th Cir. 2024). A party seeking to establish diversity jurisdiction must therefore specifically allege the citizenship of every member of every LLC involved in the litigation. Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017). To adequately allege the citizenship of an LLC, a party must allege the required jurisdictional facts for each member, and those allegations will differ depending on whether the member is a natural person or an entity. See Alphonse v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C., 618 F. App'x 765, 768 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (explaining that, when an unincorporated entity is comprised of additional entities, the “appropriate tests for citizenship involve tracing entities' citizenships down the various organizational layers where necessary”) (cleaned up); see also Thomason v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., L.L.C., No. 1:17-CV-01541, 2019 WL 3526839, at *1 n.1 (W.D. La. May 14, 2019) (stating that, where a defendant LLC's sole member was itself an LLC, and the member LLC's sole member was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, the defendant LLC's citizenship was both Delaware and Florida).

Under those authorities—which, once again, demand “clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations,” Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259—the complaint's allegations, Dkt. 5 at 3, are deficient. They do not allege facts necessary to support Neighbor to Neighbor's citizenship. See id. The Navises have, however, sufficiently alleged their own citizenships, Dkt. 5 at 3, and the notice of removal reflects Onity's New Jersey citizenship, see Dkt. 1 at 5. Only Neighbor to Neighbor's citizenship remains in doubt.

II. Service

In their amended complaint and motion for injunctive relief, the Navises state that they served both Onity and Neighbor to Neighbor with those documents. Dkts. 5 at 23–24, 6 at 17. And although Onity has appeared in this case, Neighbor to Neighbor has not. The Navises explain that they emailed and sent via certified mail copies of the complaint and motion to Neighbor to Neighbor's counsel and sent copies via certified mail to Neighbor to Neighbor's registered agent. Id. But the Navises have not provided proofs of service confirming that Neighbor to Neighbor's counsel and agent received those documents. Within seven days of the docketing of this order, the Navises must file proofs of service showing that Neighbor to Neighbor was served with the complaint and its motion for injunctive relief.

CONCLUSION

It is ORDERED that:

1) no later than June 2, 2026, the defendants provide any information the Navises may reasonably need to determine Neighbor to Neighbor's citizenship for purposes of § 1332;

2) no later than June 4, 2026, the Navises file (a) a declaration or affidavit establishing Neighbor to Neighbor's citizenship for purposes of § 1332 and (b) proofs of service of the complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction on Neighbor to Neighbor;

3) no later than June 4, 2026, the defendants respond to the Navises' motion for injunctive relief, Dkt. 6, informing the court of any jurisdictional obstacle that may exist and presenting any reason that the requested relief should be denied on the merits; and

4) no later than June 8, 2026, the Navises file a reply to the defendants' response or responses, if they deem a reply necessary.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of May, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge