Tillis v. Parson
Tillis v. Parson
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION
ALUNTRA R. TILLIS, individually ) and as Natural Parent of K.T. and K.T., ) Minors and KEVIN BROWN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2:24-cv-02392-JPM-atc ) v. ) ) CAMERAN L. PARSON, ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
On June 10, 2024, the instant case was removed from Shelby County Circuit Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. (ECF No. 1.) On January 8, 2025, the Court dismissed the claims of Plaintiffs Aluntra R. Tillis, individually and as Natural Parent of K.T. and K.T., Minors, and Kevin Brown (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against EAN Holdings, LLC (“EAN”) with prejudice. (ECF No. 45 at PageID 170.) Thus, the only remaining parties are Plaintiffs and Cameran L. Parson (“Defendant”; collectively, the “Parties”). On February 4, 2025, the Court ordered the Parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 46.) The Parties “agree[d] that diversity no longer exists.” (ECF No. 47 at PageID 172; ECF No. 48 at PageID 174.) “[A] case shall be remanded ‘if at any time before the final judgement it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.’” Calvert v. Xerox Corp.,
50 F.3d 10(6th Cir. 1995) (quoting
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). Plaintiffs are all domiciled in Tennessee. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 1–2.) Defendant is also domiciled in Tennessee. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs’ Complaint lacks complete diversity. Therefore, this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case on diversity grounds. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is therefore ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Shelby County Circuit Court.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of February, 2025. /s/ Jon P. McCalla JON P. McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown