Rajnee Huber and Thomas Huber v. Progressive Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO RAJNEE HUBER and THOMAS HUBER, Plaintiffs, vs. Civ. No. 25-1314 KK/SCY PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO PLAINTIFFS This matter comes before the Court sua sponte, following its Order To File Rule 7.1 Notice And Amend Notice Of Removal. Doc. 5. Defendant removed this action to federal court citing diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1 ¶ 3. The Court noted that the Notice of Removal alleged that both Plaintiffs are citizens of New Mexico, id., yet the Complaint averred that one Plaintiff resided in Nevada, Doc. 1-1 ¶ 2. The Complaint did not allege the citizenship of any Plaintiff. Cf. Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Surety Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015) (residency is not equivalent to citizenship.); Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014) (citizenship, or domicile, exists only when residence is coupled with an intention to remain in the state indefinitely).

On January 2, 2026, the Court accordingly ordered “Plaintiffs to file a Rule 7.1 notice within 14 days of the date of this Order.” Doc. 5 at 2; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) (“In an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a party or intervenor must, unless the court orders otherwise, file a disclosure statement. The statement must name—and identify the citizenship of—every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor: when the action is filed in or removed to federal court.”).

That deadline expired on January 16, 2026. Plaintiffs failed to file Rule 7.1 statements as to their citizenship on the docket.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than February 9, 2026, Plaintiffs must show cause in writing as why they failed to comply with the Court’s January 2 order. Failure to comply with this order could result in dismissal of the complaint.

STEVEN C. YARBROUGH UNITED STFATES MAGIST JUDGE