Jordan v. Williams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM PATRICK JORDAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-206-SLP
)
KAY LYN WILLIAMS, ) District Court of Pottawatomie
) County, Case No. CJ-2026-14
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection to Notice of Removal and Motion to
Remand [Doc. No. 12]. The matter is fully briefed. See Doc. Nos. 14, 15 and 16. Upon
review, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to state court.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff initiated his lawsuit in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of
Oklahoma, alleging that Defendant negligently struck him with a motor vehicle as he was
a pedestrian, lawfully crossing the street in Shawnee, Oklahoma on August 27, 2024. See
Pet.; see also Aff., ¶¶ 5-6, 8. Defendant then removed the action on the basis of diversity
of citizenship jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
There is no dispute between the parties that Defendant is a citizen of the State of
Oklahoma. See Notice [Doc. No. 10]; see also Pet. [Doc. No. 1-1] , ¶ 1. The parties’
dispute centers on Plaintiff’s citizenship. Plaintiff has submitted an Affidavit [Doc. No.
16-1] and states that he moved to Oklahoma in September 2022 and has continuously
Case 5:26-cv-00206-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 5

2
resided in Oklahoma since that time. He also states that he intends to remain in Oklahoma
indefinitely and that he has no plans or intentions to relocate to any other state. See id.,
¶¶ 3-4. He further states that he has never been a resident, citizen or domiciliary of the
State of Colorado. Id., ¶ 5.
Defendant claims that she needs to conduct jurisdictional discovery as to the issue
of Plaintiff’s citizenship. Defendant points to the police report issued at the time of the
accident that identifies Plaintiff’s address as located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. See
Report [Doc. No. 14-1].
II. Governing Standard
A defendant may remove a case to federal court if the case is one over “which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under
28 U.S.C. § 1332, 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.” Section 1332 require complete diversity,
and the “plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant[.]”
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989).
The party opposing a motion to remand to state court has the burden to establish
subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Lopez v. Cantex Health
Care Centers, II, LLC, No. 23-2038, 2023 WL 7321637 at *5 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023)
(citing Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Celli v. Shoell,
40 F.3d 324, 327 (10th Cir. 1994) (“If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party
claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence.”). Indeed, it is
Case 5:26-cv-00206-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 5

3
presumed that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. Pueblo of
Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143, 1151 (10th Cir. 2015). Thus, the burden is on the
removing party to overcome that presumption. Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 984-
85 (10th Cir. 2013). And “[m]ere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are not enough[.]”
Celli, 40 F.3d at 327.
III. Discussion
The Court notes that the record is replete with lack of careful attention to detail by
both parties. Nonetheless, Defendant bears the burden of establishing removal is proper
and, on the record presented, Defendant has not met her burden. In this regard, Defendant
initially filed an erroneous Notice of Removal, alleging that she was a citizen of Colorado
and that Plaintiff was a citizen of Oklahoma. Defendant then filed a Notice of Errata,
alleging that she had “inadvertently switched the home states of the parties.” See Doc. No.
10 at 1.
Defendant now seeks jurisdictional discovery but fails to explain why she could not
have discovered Plaintiff’s citizenship prior to filing the Notice of Removal. Although she
relies on the police report made in 2024, what matters for purposes of the Court’s analysis
is Plaintiff’s citizenship at the time of removal.1 Defendant has not provided any
meaningful challenge to Plaintiff’s Affidavit in which he states that he is a citizen of the
1 “[T]he relevant time period for determining the existence of complete diversity is the time of the
filing of the complaint.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1239
(10th Cir. 2015). And in removed cases, there is also a statutory requirement that diversity of
citizenship exist at the time of removal. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S.
567, 574 (2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)).
Case 5:26-cv-00206-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 5

4
State of Oklahoma and has never resided in Colorado, and which establishes that, at the
time of removal, Plaintiff was a citizen of Oklahoma.2
The Court finds Defendant has not shown jurisdictional discovery is warranted. She
has failed to show either a “legal entitlement” to such discovery or prejudice from a denial
of discovery. See Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort,
629 F.3d 1173, 1189 (10th Cir. 2010). Certainly, after remand Defendant can conduct any
jurisdictional discovery and, if appropriate, timely remove this action once obtaining
sufficient information to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. See North Fork
Operating, LP v. Mewbourne Oil Co., No. CIV-23-1187-D, 2024 WL 3256422 at *2 (citing
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); then citing O’Bryan v. Chandler, 496 F.2d 403, 409 (10th Cir.
1974)). But because Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing this Court’s
exercise of diversity jurisdiction is proper, a remand is required.3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 12]
is GRANTED.4 The Clerk of Court is directed to take all actions necessary to effect the
remand.
2 Defendant’s only challenge is based on the fact that Plaintiff initially submitted an affidavit that
was unsigned. See Doc. No. 12-1. Plaintiff then corrected that error with the filing of a signed
affidavit. See Doc. No. 16-1.
3 Although not raised by Plaintiff at this time, it appears any subsequent removal would be barred
by the forum defendant rule which prohibits a defendant from removing a case on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction if any “properly joined and served” defendant is a citizen of the state in which
the state-court action was brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
4 Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied. Defendant appears to have had an
objectively reasonable basis for the removal and no unusual circumstances warrant an award of
fees. See Martin v Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (2005).
Case 5:26-cv-00206-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00206-SLP Document 17 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 5