Bass et al v. C.R. England, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WESTON BASS, Individually and
as parent of E.B. a minor, and
PENELOPE BASS,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-01184-SCY-LF
MUHAMED RIDA and
C.R. ENGLAND, 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. Defendant
C.R. England, Inc. (“C.R. England”) removed this this case from the Second Judicial District
Court of the State of New Mexico based on diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1. Defendant Muhamed
Rida filed a notice consenting to removal. Doc. 10.
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).
Case 1:26-cv-01184-MLG-LF Document 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
C.R. England has asserted that, for diversity purposes, it is a citizen of Utah. Doc. 1 ¶ 9;
Doc. 4. However, in asserting that Plaintiffs are citizens of New Mexico and that Mr. Rida is a
citizen of Oklahoma, C.R. England refers to Plaintiffs’ complaint. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7–8, 10. The
complaint only asserts that Plaintiffs are “residents” of New Mexico and that Mr. Rida, upon
information and belief, is a “resident” of Oklahoma. Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 1, 4. Neither the complaint nor
the notice of removal identifies the domicile of Plaintiffs or Mr. Rida.
While the Tenth Circuit has stated that “the place of residence is prima facie the
domicile,” State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994),
“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.”). A minor’s “domicile is
determined by that of their parents.” Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 48.
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
Case 1:26-cv-01184-MLG-LF Document 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor” after an “action is filed in or removed to
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 summary:
1. 	Plaintiffs shall file a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement identifying each plaintiff’s
citizenship no later than Wednesday, May 20, 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-01184-MLG-LF Document 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 3