Order | Filed: October 09, 2026
| Entered: October 09, 2026
Sosa v. ICM Transportation, LLC et al
Torts/Pers Inj: Motor Vehicle | Texas Northern
Order
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
The Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). Defendants ICM Transportation, LLC and Juan Antonio Moreno Larosa (together, "Defendants") removed this case to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &sect 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 1. Accordingly, the parties' citizenship must be completely diverse in that one of the plaintiffs cannot share the same state citizenship as one of the defendants, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003). Further, when subject matter jurisdiction rests on diversity, "citizenship must be 'distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). Defendants failed to sufficiently allege citizenship of any party.
As for Plaintiff's citizenship, Defendants allege that, "[a]ccording to [her] Original Petition, Plaintiff is a resident of Dallas County, Texas." Doc. No. 1 at 2. Defendants then cite Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011) as support for the premise that "evidence of a person's residence" in a state is "prima facie proof" that the individual is domiciled there. Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. (quoting Hollinger, 654 F.3d at 571). Notably, Defendants do not provide evidence of Plaintiff's residence being "established in Texas" nor of her intent to remain in Texas. Doc. No. 1 at 3. In making this conclusory statement, Defendants merely rely on Plaintiff's allegation of her residency in her state court petition. Doc. No. 1 at 2 ("According to Plaintiff's Original Petition"). But "the mere fact that [the plaintiff's] pleadings identify [her] as a Texas resident doesn't guarantee that she's a Texas citizen." Villamil v. Fayrustin, 730 F. Supp. 3d 328, 334 (W.D. Tex. 2024); see SXSW, L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2023) (emphasizing the well-established case law that the citizenship of a natural person "is determined by domicile, which requires residency plus an intent to make the place of residency one's permanent home.") (emphasis added) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 568-69 (1915)). Thus, Defendants' allegation of Plaintiff's citizenship falls short.
Defendants' allegation of Defendant Larosa's citizenship is equally deficient. In alleging that Defendant Larosa is a citizen of Michigan, Defendants cite to his "Declaration of Residency", see Doc. No. 1 at 3, n.6, attached to their Notice of Removal. (Defendants incorrectly refer to this exhibit as Exhibit H when in fact it is Exhibit G.) In the unsworn declaration, Defendant Larosa identifies his address in Michigan, states that he is "currently residing in Lansing, Michigan" and that he has "been residing in Michigan since 2022," and that he "was a resident of Michigan" at the time of the incident giving rise to this lawsuit. Doc. No. 1-7. "Citizenship and residence, as often declared by this court, are not synonymous terms." MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648 (1878)). "Merely residing in a state doesn't necessarily make someone a citizen of that state; that person must also possess the intent to remain there indefinitely." Villamil, 730 F. Supp. 3d at 334 (citing MidCap Media, 929 F.3d at 313). While the state of Defendant Larosa's residency is clear, his declaration wholly fails to establish his citizenship. See SXSW, L.L.C., 83 F.4th at 407. Thus, Defendant Larosa's citizenship has not been established for diversity purposes.
As for Defendant ICM Transportation, LLC ("ICM"), the citizenship of a limited liability company ("LLC") for diversity purposes is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990); accord SXSW, 83 F.4th at 407. Further, these allegations must include the identity of each member through every layer and each member's citizenship. MidCap Media, 929 F.3d at 314. Defendants allege that Defendant ICM's unidentified "sole member is a citizen of the State of Michigan" and, therefore Defendant ICM is a citizen of Michigan. Doc. No. 1 at 3. Defendants cite a "Declaration of Residency" as proof of the LLC member's citizenship. Id. at n.5. (Again, Defendants incorrectly identify the cited exhibit.) In this unsworn declaration, Isobel Capote Macea ("Macea") states that she is "a member" of Defendant ICM. Doc. No. 1-6 (emphasis added). Macea's other statemen... (truncated)