Vargas et al v. Olivas et al DO NOT DOCKET, CASE REMANDED.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
CARLOS VARGAS AND ADRIANA
GONZALEZ RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF E.V. AND
M.V., MINOR CHILDREN,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-18
JESUS ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ
OLIVAS D/B/A ROTRANS CRUCES
INTERNACIONALES AND EDGAR
REFUGIO MENDEZ RAMOS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the above-captioned case which was filed under the
assertion that the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was based on diversity. (Dkt.
No. 1 at 5-6). After considering the Parties’ assertions at a minor settlement
conference held on this date, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be
REMANDED back to state court.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in which it was
alleged that diversity jurisdiction existed because Plaintiffs were citizens of Texas,
and Defendants were citizens of Mexico for purposes of diversity (alienage)
jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6).
Later, at a minor settlement conference on March 11, 2026, the Undersigned
was informed by Plaintiffs’ counsel that one of the Plaintiffs had just been deported
from the United States two (2) weeks ago. (See Minute Entry dated March 11, 2026).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:25-cv-00018 Document 29 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
After further inquiry by the Court, counsel for Plaintiffs confirmed that he just
learned that Plaintiffs were not domiciled citizens of Texas for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction. (Id.). Counsel for Defendants agreed that diversity jurisdiction did not
exist as the Parties are not completely diverse. (Id.).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal trial . . . courts have the duty to examine the basis for their subject
matter jurisdiction, doing so on their own motion if necessary.” Lewis v. Hunt, 492
F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). Because federal courts
have limited jurisdiction, parties must make “clear, distinct, and precise affirmative
jurisdictional allegations” in their pleadings. SXSW, L.L.C. v. Federal Ins. Co.,
83 F.4th 405, 408 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d
1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988)). Cases are presumed to lie outside the Court’s limited
federal jurisdiction and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction.” Hood ex rel. Miss. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 737 F.3d 78, 84
(5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c).
For a federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity,
there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount
in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)–(b). “[C]omplete diversity requires that all persons on one side of a
controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.”
Case 5:25-cv-00018 Document 29 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 830, 836 (5th Cir.
2017) (citation omitted). “When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship
should be distinctly and affirmatively alleged.” McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc.,
511 F.2d 653, 654 (5th Cir. 1975) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Failure
[to adequately] allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates dismissal.” Howery
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001).
III. RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, as both Parties’ counsel agree that Plaintiffs and Defendants are
nondiverse, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be REMANDED.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Additionally, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that
counsel for the Parties be admonished as to the importance of ensuring accurate
representations to the Court.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Report and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy
of the Report and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except
Case 5:25-cv-00018 Document 29 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED this 11th day of March, 2026.
Christopher dos Santos
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00018 Document 29 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4