Rajnee Huber and Thomas Huber v. Progressive Insurance Company

Summary

The court orders Plaintiffs Rajnee Huber and Thomas Huber to show cause why they failed to comply with a prior order requiring Rule 7.1 disclosures identifying their citizenship. The court explains that the failure to establish citizenship may affect diversity jurisdiction and warns that noncompliance could result in dismissal of the complaint.

Holdings

1. In an action removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the parties must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) by identifying the citizenship of the individuals or entities whose citizenship is attributed to them.
2. Residency is not equivalent to citizenship for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction; citizenship requires residence coupled with an intent to remain in the state indefinitely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's order requiring Rule 7.1 disclosures identifying their citizenship.
2. Whether Plaintiffs should be required to show cause for that noncompliance, with dismissal identified as a possible consequence.

Disposition

other