Opinion
Civil No. 06-11275.
June 23, 2006
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND
Plaintiff Christina Fleming brought this case in Jackson County Circuit Court, and Defendants removed it to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moves to remand this case to state court, alleging an absence of complete diversity of citizenship, and Defendants oppose this motion. The parties have not requested a hearing, and this Court finds one is not necessary, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for remand is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff lives in Jackson County, Michigan, and she was employed there as a truck driver by Defendant Fed Ex Freight East, Inc. ("Fed Ex") since December 1997. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5, 9.) Plaintiff does not say when her employment was terminated. She asserts that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, Defendant Dave Mollard. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Defendant Fed Ex is an Arkansas corporation with its principle place of business in Arkansas. (Pl.'s Mot. 4; Defs.' Br. 3.) Defendant Mollard is a Canadian citizen and has been a permanent resident of the United States since 1974. (Defs.' Br. 3; Mollard Aff. ¶ 2.) Defendants have submitted a copy of Mollard's permanent resident card ("green card") as proof of his residency status. (Defs.' Supp. Br. Ex. C.) Mollard lives in California, and he moved there from Michigan on June 1, 2005. (Defs.' Br. 3; Mollard Aff. ¶ 2.)
II. ANALYSIS
A. Diversity Jurisdiction
Plaintiff contends that diversity of citizenship is lacking because Plaintiff is a Michigan resident, Mollard used to be a Michigan resident, and Fed Ex allegedly uses Michigan subcontractors.
(1.) Defendant Mollard
The diversity jurisdiction statute provides that a district court has jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). An alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence is deemed a citizen of the state where he is domiciled. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Aliens who have obtained lawful permanent resident status under the immigration laws (i.e., aliens with green cards) are considered aliens admitted for permanent residence. Kato v. County of Westchester, 927 F. Supp. 714, 716 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant Mollard is considered a citizen of his state of domicile.
Domicile is determined by one's physical presence in a state and intent to remain there indefinitely. Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir. 1990). On June 1, 2005, Mollard moved to California from Michigan, and he has not returned to Michigan since then. (Defs.' Br. 3, Mollard Aff. ¶ 2.) He states that he has made California his permanent residence and intends to remain there for an indefinite period of time. (Defs.' Br. 3, Mollard Aff. ¶¶ 2-3.) He obtained employment in California, purchased a condominium in California, filed a change of address with the U.S. Postal Service, notified his creditors and others of his change of address, and opened a bank account in California. (Def.'s Br. 3, Mollard Aff. ¶ 2.) This Court has held that similar conduct was sufficient to establish a person's intent to remain in a state indefinitely. Bateman v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 7 F. Supp. 2d 910, 913 (E.D. Mich. 1998) (Feikens, J.). Other courts have also relied upon such factors to determine domicile. E.g., Edick v. Poznanski, 6 F. Supp. 2d 666, 669 (W.D. Mich. 1998). It is clear that Mollard established domicile in California when he moved there in June 2005.
Citizenship is determined as of the date when the case was commenced and the date when the notice of removal was filed.Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 176 F.3d 904, 907 (6th Cir. 1999). Mollard has been domiciled in California since June 2005, Plaintiff's case was filed in state court on December 22, 2005, and Defendants removed this case to federal court on March 28, 2006. Mollard was a citizen of California when this case was filed and removed.
Defendants allege that Plaintiff's case was commenced when the summons was issued on January 10, 2006. (Defs.' Br. 2 n. 1.) Michigan Court Rule 2.101(B) states that "[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with a court." Plaintiff states that her Complaint was filed on December 22, 2005. (Pl.'s Mot. 3.)
(2.) Defendant Fed Ex
Defendant Fed Ex is an Arkansas corporation with its principle place of business in Arkansas. A corporation is considered to be a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Accordingly, Fed Ex is a citizen of the state of Arkansas.
Plaintiff argues that Fed Ex's citizenship is affected by its alleged use of Michigan subcontractors. This argument is without merit for two reasons. First, there is no legal support for Plaintiff's argument. Plaintiff cites no case law, and this Court's own research has found none, stating that a corporation's citizenship is affected by the location of its subcontractors. Second, Plaintiff offers no evidence that Fed Ex actually employs Michigan subcontractors, implying that this is mere speculation on Plaintiff's part. Therefore, Fed Ex is clearly a citizen of Arkansas for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is a Michigan citizen, Defendant Mollard is a California citizen, and Defendant Fed Ex is an Arkansas citizen. Diversity jurisdiction exists in this case, and Plaintiff's motion for remand is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.