Foster v. Springfield ALF LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
SHAWN FOSTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINGFIELD ALF, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-418
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. NO. 10)
______________________________________________________________________________
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Shawn Foster’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand (the
“Motion”) (Doc. No. 10), along with Defendants Springfield ALF, LLC and Angel Anthony’s
(“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”) Notice of Consent to Remand (Doc. No. 13). As set
forth below, because the Court agrees with the Parties that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
hear this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 10).
I. BACKGROUND
This matter stems from a personal injury dispute, wherein Judith A. Foster (“Ms. Foster”)
sustained injuries while riding in a medical transport van owned and operated by Defendants. (Doc.
No. 2 at PageID 15–16.) Allegedly, Ms. Foster’s “unsecured wheelchair tipped over, causing [her]
to be thrown from the chair and sustain injuries.” (Id. at PageID 16.) As a result, Ms. Foster was
moved “from assisted self-sufficient living to skilled nursing.” (Id.) For reasons unrelated to the
instant case, Ms. Foster died on May 26, 2025. (Id.) At the time of her death, Ms. Foster was a
resident of Clark County, Ohio. (Doc. No. 13 at PageID 85–86.) On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff,
Case: 3:25-cv-00418-TMR-CHG Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/29/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
a Wisconsin resident, brought this suit as the executor of Ms. Foster’s estate in the Common Pleas
Court of Clark County, Ohio. (Doc. No. 2 at PageID 15.) On December 3, 2025, Defendants, both
residents of Ohio, removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No.
1 at PageID 1.) On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff timely moved to remand, arguing this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction due to a lack of complete diversity between the opposing parties. (Doc.
No. 10 at PageID 50.) In lieu of a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants filed a
Notice of Consent to Remand, therein agreeing with Plaintiff that the Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the case. (Doc. No. 13 at PageID 85–86.) Consequently, the instant matter is
ripe for disposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by defendant . . . to the
district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.” “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Therefore, lower federal courts can adjudicate cases
about only “those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction.” Home Depot U.
S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019) (quoting Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982)). A court has diversity jurisdiction over a case where
there is complete diversity of citizenship between the opposing parties, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls on
the removing party. Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2000).
III. ANALYSIS
As mentioned, Defendants’ basis for removal is derived from diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1 at PageID 1.) “The diversity of the parties is determined
Case: 3:25-cv-00418-TMR-CHG Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/29/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
on the basis of their citizenship—that is to say their domiciles.” Naji v. Lincoln, 665 F. App’x 397,
400 (6th Cir. 2016). Where a case is brought by a representative on behalf of an estate, “the legal
representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as
the decedent.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). An LLC’s domicile is determined by “the citizenship of
each of its members.” Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468, 494
(6th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted), aff’d sub nom., Star Athletica, L.L.C. v.
Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017).
Here, the domiciles of the parties are undisputed. (See Doc. No. 13.) At the time of her
death, Ms. Foster—whose residence determines Plaintiff’s domicile—was a resident of Ohio. (Id.
at PageID 85–86.) Eamon Burgess, the sole member of Springfield ALF, LLC, is a citizen of Ohio,
as is his co-defendant, Angel Anthony. (Doc. Nos. 13 at PageID 86; 2 at PageID 15.) Consequently,
there is no complete diversity, and the Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED;
(2) This case shall be REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Clark
County, Ohio; and
(3) This case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, January 29, 2026.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:25-cv-00418-TMR-CHG Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/29/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>