Available outside my office.
Section B:
Mean: 28.57
Median: 25
High: 42
Section A:
Mean: 31.28
Median: 30
High: 40
Specific Point: Read § 1332(a)(2) carefully. It does not say that a foreign citizen with a green card is deemed a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled for all cases. The statute used to say that; Congress amended in 2011 because it raised potential Art. III problems. The statute nowsays that § 1332(a)(2) does not apply to an action between a citizen of a state and a green-card holder domiciled in the same state, even though it is between a citizen of a state and a foreign citizen. The green-card holder remains a citizen or subject of a foreign state for all other purposes. An 9action between a citizen of a state and a green-card holder domiciled in a different state would be between a citizen of a state and a citizen/subject of a foreign state under (a)(2) (were the latter "deemed" a citizen of a state, jurisdiction would shift in this action to (a)(1), which is how it operated under the former statute). And for (a)(3) purposes, we do not care at all about the foreign subject's immigration status.
General Point: Any essay must begin with the motion or thing you are asked to address. This question asked the court to decide the Motion for Remand. The first thing to explain is what removal is and what a motion to remand is. That then takes you into timeliness and jurisdiction and all the stuff you want to talk about. But it makes no sense to jump right to what jurisdiction is or whether the motion is timely without giving the context for why you are discussing jurisdiction and the timing of the motion.
The Motion to Remand is DENIED; the action remains in this court.
A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction,” § 1441(a), such that the action could have been filed in federal court in the first instance. Defendants file a Notice of Removal in the relevant district court. § 1446(a). A plaintiff challenges removal by filing a Motion for Remand. § 1447(c).
Timing of Removal
Defendants timely removed this action. Defendants must file the Notice of Removal within 30 days after service of the Complaint. § 1446(b)(1). All defendants must join in or consent to removal. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Joining removal means the party’s name is on the Notice of Removal; consenting means the party agrees to allow another party to remove. Each defendant has 30 days from service to remove. § 1446(b)(2)(B). Where defendants are served at different times, the later-served defendant can file a notice of removal and an earlier-served defendant can consent to that removal, even if the earlier-served defendant did not initiate or consent to removal within its 30-day window. § 1446(b)(2)(C).
Lufthansa was served on December 22, 2025 and filed the Notice of Removal on January 12, 2026, within its 30-day period. LGBS was served on December 1, 2025; it had not initiated removal as of December 31, when its 30-day period lapsed. But one defendant may consent to removal initiated by a co-defendant, even after that defendant’s removal period has lapsed. Lufthansa filed a timely Notice and LGBS could consent to that notice.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and is “between,” among other pairs, “citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of foreign states are additional parties.” § 1332(a)(3).
Section 1332(a)(3) requires adverse parties who are citizens of a state (and citizens of the United States) on both sides of the action. A civil action is “between citizens of different states” under § 1332(a) when there is complete diversity—no party is a citizen of the same state as any adverse party. Strawbridge; Mas. Minimal diversity—where at least one party is a citizen of a different state than at least one adverse party—does not satisfy § 1332(a), although it is sufficient for an action to be between citizens of different states for Article III § 2 purposes. State Farm. Courts determine citizenship at the time the action is filed. Mas.
An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled. Domicile is a person’s true, fixed, permanent home and the place he intends to remain and to return to when he goes away. Mas. A corporation is a citizen of every state or foreign state in which it is incorporated and has its principal place of business. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s principal place of business is its “nerve center,” the “place where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz. That typically is the corporate headquarters. An unincorporated association is a citizen of every state in which its beneficial owners are citizens. Where an unincorporated association’s beneficial owners include other unincorporated associations, the court must inquire into those beneficial owners, looking for an owner whose citizenship can be determined independently. A limited liability company’s beneficial owners are its members.
Taking as true the facts in the Complaint, the Amended Notice of Removal, and the Molin Declaration, this court has jurisdiction over this action under § 1332(a)(3).
Plaintiff John Doe is a citizen of California. (Compl. ¶ 3; Am. Notice ¶ 5). Plaintiff Robert Roe is citizen of Saudi Arabia, admitted to the United States for lawful permanent residence and domiciled in California. (Compl. ¶ 4; Am. Notice ¶ 6). Defendant Lufthansa is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Cologne (the location of its corporate headquarters from which directors and officers operate the corporation. (Compl. ¶ 5; Am. Notice ¶ 7; Molins Dec. ¶ 11).
This case turns on the citizenship of LGBS.
Under the original Notice of Removal, this court would not have jurisdiction. The original Notice identified LGBS’s sole member as Paul Majeran, a German citizen residing in New York, making LGBS a German citizen. This action would have been between a citizen of a state (Doe) and a citizen of a foreign state (Roe) against two citizens of foreign states. The absence of adverse U.S. citizens means § 1332(a)(3) is not satisfied.
The Amended Notice of Removal and the Molins Declaration correct LGBS’s citizenship, establishing jurisdiction. LGBS’s sole member is another unincorporated association—Lufthansa North America LLC. (Am. Notice ¶¶ 9-10; Molins Decl. ¶¶ 5-6). Lufthansa North America’s sole member is Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma. (Am. Notice ¶ 11-12; Molins Decl. ¶¶ 7-8). Lufthansa Technik is a citizen of Delaware and Oklahoma. Because Lufthansa Technik is its sole member, Lufthansa North America becomes a citizen of Delaware and Oklahoma. And because Lufthansa North America is LGBS' sole member, LGBS bcomes a citizen of Delaware and Oklahoma.
This is a civil action between Doe, a citizen of California, and LGBS, a citizen of Delaware and Oklahoma. Complete diversity exists between them, as no U.S. party is from the same state as any adverse party. Roe, a citizen of Saudi Arabia, and Lufthansa, a citizen of Germany, are additional parties on each side of the action.
Amount in Controversy
In evaluating the amount-in-controversy requirement, the court relies on the amount pleaded in the complaint in good faith. Mas. The requirement is satisfied unless it appears to a legal certainty the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount. Id. Removal also relies on the amount pleaded in good faith in the complaint. § 1446(c)(1). Each plaintiff must meet the jurisdictional minimum.
Based on the Complaint, each plaintiff satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement. Roe alleges that his inability to return to Saudi Arabia required him to sell real estate at a loss $ 300,000 from being unable to return to Saudi Arabia. In addition, he seeks damages for a terminal medical condition and loss of family connections. Doe claims that he had to close his business, which earned more than $ 250,000 annually prior to 2021. Nothing shows that either plaintiff could not reasonably recover those amounts.
