Chavez et al v. Reynolds et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MIKE CHAVEZ and KAREN
HARRIS,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-00915-SCY-LF
PAUL “SLED” REYNOLDS and
GENTLE JUNGLE, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER TO FILE RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE AND AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL
THIS MATTER is before the court sua sponte for jurisdictional purposes. Defendants
Paul “Sled” Reynolds and Gentle Jungle, Inc. removed this this case from the First Judicial
District Court of the State of New Mexico based on diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” When a plaintiff files a civil action in state
court over which the federal court would have original jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship, the defendant may remove the action to federal court, provided that no defendant is a
citizen of the State in which such action is brought. See 28.U.S.C. § 1441(a)–(b). “[T]he
ultimate burden of establishing complete diversity” lies with “the party seeking to invoke federal
jurisdiction.” ADA Carbon Sols. (Red River), LLC v. Atlas Carbon, LLC, 146 F.4th 1296, 1306
(10th Cir. 2025); Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013). Here, the notice of
removal is insufficient to sustain diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants state that Plaintiffs are citizens of New Mexico because their complaint states
that they reside in Valencia County, New Mexico. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 11–12 (citing Doc. 1-1¶¶ 1–2).
Case 1:26-cv-00915-SCY-LF Document 9 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Defendants further assert that Mr. Reynolds is a citizen of California because he resides in
Lebec, California. Id. ¶ 14. Neither the complaint nor the notice of removal identify the
domicile of Plaintiffs or Mr. Reynolds, but Defendants state that “[r]esidence is prima facie
evidence of domicile.” Id. ¶ 10 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520
(10th Cir. 1994)).
While the Tenth Circuit has stated that “the place of residence is prima facie the
domicile,” State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co, 19 F.3d at 520, “allegations of mere ‘residence’ may
not be equated with ‘citizenship’ for the purposes of establishing diversity,” Whitelock v.
Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514 (10th Cir. 1972). Indeed, “the prima facie case flowing from an
allegation of residence must be backed up by a district court finding, at some later point in the
proceeding, as to the existence of diversity at the time of the filing of the complaint.” Siloam
Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015). “An
individual’s residence is not equivalent to his domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for
determining citizenship.” Id. An adult’s domicile is the state where the person physically
resides and intends to remain indefinitely. Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th
Cir. 2014); see also Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989)
(“[D]omicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of
mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 requires a party in a diversity jurisdiction case to file
a disclosure statement as to its own citizenship. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) (requiring the
disclosure statement to “name—and identify the citizenship of—every individual or entity whose
citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor” after an “action is filed in or removed to
Case 1:26-cv-00915-SCY-LF Document 9 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
federal court”). In keeping with this intent, the Court orders Plaintiffs to file a Rule 7.1
disclosure statement within 14 days of the date of this Order as to their citizenship.
In their notice of removal, Defendants state that Mr. Reynolds “is a citizen of the State of
California” because he “is a resident of Lebec, California and owner of Defendant Gentle Jungle,
Inc.” Doc. 1 ¶ 14. The notice says nothing of Mr. Reynolds’ intent to remain indefinitely in
California and appears to equate his citizenship with his residence. Accordingly, the Court will
provide Defendants the opportunity to file an amended notice of removal to allege facts
necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction within fourteen days of Plaintiffs filing their Rule 7.1
disclosure statement. See Hendrix v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 390 F.2d 299, 300–02 (10th Cir.
1968) (permitting amendment of notice of removal to allege citizenship rather than mere
residence).
In summary:
1. 	Plaintiffs shall file a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement identifying each plaintiff’s
citizenship no later than Wednesday, May 6, 2026.
2. 	Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal no later than fourteen (14) days
after Plaintiffs have filed their Rule 7.1 disclosure statement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00915-SCY-LF Document 9 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 3