Merworth v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ROSEANN MERWORTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTERS,
INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO
STATE COURT FOR LACK OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
Case No. 2:25-cv-00899-JNP
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
The court “must, sua sponte, satisfy itself of its power to adjudicate in every case and at
every stage of the proceedings.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269, 1270–
71 (10th Cir. 1998). Here, the court has reason to doubt that it has subject matter jurisdiction to
hear this case.
Plaintiff Roseann Merworth sued defendant Smith’s Food and Drug Centers, Inc. in Utah
state court for negligence. Smith’s Food removed this action to federal court, asserting diversity
jurisdiction. In its notice of removal, Smith’s Food claimed that Merworth is a citizen of Utah and
that it is a citizen of Ohio because it is incorporated in that state and has its principal place of
business there. But Smith’s Food’s assertion regarding its principal place of business is suspect.
This court recently found that Smith’s Food had failed to carry its burden to show that its principal
place of business was in Ohio rather than Utah. Davis v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctr., Inc., No.
2:22-cv-00675-JNP-DAO, 2023 WL 4764008, at *4 (D. Utah July 26, 2023). If Smith’s Foods has
its principal place of business in Utah, it would be a citizen of this state, and the court would not
have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (c)(1).
Case 2:25-cv-00899-JNP-JCB Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
“Where the district court has doubts about whether diversity exists, the district court may
‘insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed, and for that purpose the
court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify its allegations by a preponderance of
evidence.’” Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation modified); accord Hall v.
Rental Assocs., Inc., 266 U.S. App. D.C. 120, 833 F.2d 370 (1987) (unpublished table decision)
(holding that a magistrate judge did not err by dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction after
sua sponte questioning an assertion regarding a corporation’s principal place of business and
holding an evidentiary hearing). The court ORDERS Smith’s Foods to show cause why this court
should not remand this action to state court for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Smith’s Foods must
file a brief and any supporting evidence by December 22, 2025. Merworth may file any response
by January 12, 2026.
DATED December 3, 2025.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00899-JNP-JCB Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2