Machorro v. Progressive Home Advantage

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ERIC MACHORRO and TAMARA CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00653-JHC TORRES-TORRES, ORDER Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE HOME ADVANTAGE, Defendant.

14 Defendant removed this action based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 1. In its notice of removal, Defendant states that “Plaintiffs are residents of King County, and at all times material hereto maintained their principal place of residence in King County, Washington.” Id. (emphasis added). But diversity jurisdiction is based on the citizenship of the parties, not their residences.

18 See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Plaintiffs’ complaint and Pfizer’s notice of removal both state that Plaintiffs were ‘residents’ of California. But the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency.”). While the two concepts often overlap, they are not coextensive. See id. (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.”). l Within fourteen (14) days, the parties are ORDERED to show cause regarding this Court’s jurisdiction. The parties shall submit briefs no longer than three (3) pages in length explaining whether (or not) diversity jurisdiction exists.

4 Dated this 28th day of June, 2023.

Cob 4. Chur 7 John H. Chun United States District Judge 1]