Reported / Citable
Background
This case stems from a motor vehicle collision in Fort Bend County, Texas, in August 2025, which resulted in the death of Khari Reid. Plaintiff Wanda Warren, Reid’s mother, sued Erik Vera (driver) and Carmensita Transportation LLC (employer) in Texas state court, asserting both a survival action on behalf of Reid’s estate and a wrongful death claim individually.
Carmensita Transportation LLC removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and alleging that the Plaintiff was a citizen of Georgia, while both Defendants were citizens of Texas. Plaintiff Warren then filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because complete diversity was absent (contending Reid was a Texas resident at his death, whose citizenship would be attributed to his estate) and that Carmensita’s removal was procedurally improper due to the “snap removal” method used.
The court granted a request for limited jurisdictional discovery to determine Reid’s citizenship at the time of his death. After discovery, Carmensita filed an amended response, maintaining that Reid was a Georgia resident, thus preserving complete diversity, but did not address the procedural removal argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, finding that complete diversity of citizenship existed and that Carmensita’s snap removal was procedurally proper. Regarding diversity jurisdiction, the court found that the amount in controversy requirement was met, as the Plaintiff sought damages exceeding $1,000,000. The primary dispute was Reid’s domicile at the time of his death, as his citizenship would be attributed to his estate for diversity purposes. While Plaintiff asserted Reid intended to establish residency in Texas, the court gave this little weight.
The court concluded that Reid remained a Georgia citizen, citing substantial evidence: Reid was a registered Georgia voter until his death, and in March 2025, he had certified to a Georgia court (as a condition of bail) that his home address was in Georgia and he would not change it without notice. No such notice was given, and a bench warrant was later issued for his arrest in Georgia. Furthermore, in a Texas criminal proceeding, Reid stated he had no rent or mortgage payments, and while he lived with a friend, he was not on the lease. The court determined that Carmensita proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Reid did not intend to make Texas his permanent home, thus complete diversity existed (Plaintiff and Reid as Georgia citizens, Defendants as Texas citizens).
Addressing the procedural challenge to snap removal, the court relied on Fifth Circuit precedent, specifically *Anaya v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.*, which affirms that the forum-defendant rule (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)) does not preclude removal if a defendant, even a forum defendant, removes the case *before* any forum defendant has been properly joined and served. Since Carmensita removed the case prior to either defendant being served, the removal was deemed proper. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court deny the Motion to Remand.
Key Takeaways
- To establish a new domicile for diversity jurisdiction, a litigant must demonstrate both physical presence and an intent to make that place a permanent home, with objective facts often outweighing subjective statements of intent.
- A decedent’s citizenship is attributed to the representative of their estate when determining diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).
- The Fifth Circuit broadly permits “snap removal,” allowing defendants (even forum defendants) to remove a case to federal court if removal occurs before any forum defendant is properly served, as established in cases like *Anaya v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.*
- Prior judicial representations (e.g., bail conditions stating a permanent address) can be compelling evidence of domicile, making it difficult to later assert a change in intent.
Why It Matters
This Memorandum and Recommendation provides crucial guidance on the stringent requirements for establishing a change of domicile in diversity jurisdiction cases, particularly when a deceased party’s citizenship is at issue. It underscores that courts prioritize objective evidence, such as legal commitments and judicial records, over less substantiated claims of intent, especially when those claims are made by others.
Furthermore, the opinion reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s permissive stance on “snap removal,” a procedural maneuver that allows defendants to bypass the forum-defendant rule by removing a case before any in-state defendant is formally served. This ruling solidifies a powerful tool for defendants seeking federal court jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of swift action in removal proceedings and maintaining a clear precedent for federal courts within the circuit.