## Facts

- Angela Ochoa, a Louisiana citizen, was injured in a February 2, 2006 automobile collision in New Orleans.
- Ochoa sued Paul Gulley (the driver), Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., and PV Holding Corporation in Louisiana state court on October 5, 2006.
- Before Hurricane Katrina, Gulley lived in Orleans Parish, Louisiana; his apartment was destroyed by the storm.
- After Katrina, Gulley relocated to Arlington, Texas and lived there during the post-storm period.
- Budget and PV Holding were served on October 31, 2006 and removed the case to federal court on November 30, 2006, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- Gulley was not served until December 21, 2006 and did not join in the notice of removal.
- Ochoa moved to remand, arguing (1) removal was procedurally defective because Gulley did not consent, and (2) the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Gulley remained domiciled in Louisiana.
- The dispositive question became Gulley’s domicile as of the state-court filing date.

## Issues

1. Whether the removing defendants met their burden to show complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 by establishing that Gulley changed his domicile from Louisiana to Texas before the state petition was filed.
2. Whether removal was procedurally defective under the rule of unanimity because Gulley did not timely join or consent, and whether any such defect required remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to remand.
- The court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because complete diversity was absent.
- Gulley was found to remain domiciled in Louisiana at the time the complaint was filed, defeating diversity because Ochoa was also a Louisiana citizen.
- Because subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking, the case was remanded to Louisiana state court, and the procedural removal issue was not outcome-determinative.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity between the plaintiff and all defendants.
- Citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by domicile, which requires (1) physical presence in the state and (2) intent to remain there permanently or indefinitely.
- Domicile is evaluated using multiple objective indicators (e.g., voting ties, tax and property connections, driver’s license, banking, and community affiliations); no single factor is controlling.
- Citizenship is determined as of the time the complaint is filed; later developments generally do not cure an initial absence of complete diversity.
- The removing party bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction, and doubts or ambiguities are construed against removal in favor of remand.

## Conclusion

The federal court remanded the case after concluding that the removing defendants did not prove that a Hurricane Katrina evacuee defendant had formed the intent to remain in Texas indefinitely by the filing date; because he remained domiciled in Louisiana, complete diversity was absent and removal under § 1332 was improper.


Ochoa v. PV Holding Corp., No. 06-8780, 2007 WL 496612 (E.D. La. Feb. 8, 2007)