UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JAMES GOLDSBERRY, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 6:25-cv-958-JA-DCI DAVOL, INC., and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants.

ORDER This case is before the Court once again on review of Plaintiffs citizenship allegations. In the Complaint (Doc. 1-1), the Amended Complaint (Doc. 5), and the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), Plaintiff alleged that he “was at all time material hereto[] a citizen and resident of the State of Florida.” (Doc. 1-1 § 2; Doc. 5 {| 2; Doc. 9 | 2). However, in his Amended Disclosure Statement, Plaintiff provided an address in Mississippi when asked to identify his citizenship. (Doc. 13 at 1-2). The Court thus ordered Plaintiff to “clarify where he is domiciled and provide an explanation of the discrepancy in his filings regarding his citizenship.” (Order, Doc. 14).

Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order by stating that “[a]t the time of the incident raised in the complaint Plaintiff was a resident of Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida” but that he has “reside[d]” in Mississippi since April 30, 2024. (Doc. 15 2-3). However, assertions of “residence” are not determinative of where Plaintiff was domiciled when he filed the Complaint in this case—the salient question in determining whether the parties to this case

are of diverse citizenship. See Mas v. Perry,

, 1899 (5th Cir. 1974)! (explaining that “the diverse citizenship among adverse parties must be present at the time the complaint is filed” and that “[flor diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient”). As defined in Mas, “[a] person’s domicile is the place of ‘his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” 489 F.3d at 1399 (quoting Stine v. Moore,

(5th Cir. 1954)). It is ORDERED that no later than August 15, 2025, Plaintiff shall state where he was domiciled—that is, “the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom”—on May 31, 2025, the date on

1JTn Bonner v. City of Prichard,

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981.

which he filed the Complaint in this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August G , 202%.

JQHN ANTOON II United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties