United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff Summer
Tillman's Motion to Remand (Doc. 8). Defendant Uber
Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) submitted a Response
in Opposition (Doc. 13), and an Amended Response (Doc. 16).
The matter is ripe for review.
case stems from an alleged assault and battery in an Uber
vehicle. Tillman filed a Complaint in state court alleging
Pich Allan Michaels, an Uber driver, touched and kissed her
after he provided her for-hire transportation services. (Doc.
2). Uber removed the case to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). This dispute hinges on the propriety
of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). In general, “[i]t is to be presumed
that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.”
Id.“[T]he party invoking the court's
jurisdiction bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance
of the evidence, facts supporting the existence of federal
jurisdiction.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d
1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002).
28 U.S.C. § 1441, a case filed in state court can be
removed to federal court if the district court has original
jurisdiction, which exists if there is federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” Hialeah
Anesthesia Specialists, LLC v. Coventry Health Care of
Florida, Inc., 258 F.Supp.3d 1323, 1326 (S.D. Fla.
2017). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000.00, exclusive of interests and
costs, and the dispute exists between citizens of different
states. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a)(1).
determining “the citizenship of the parties to
determine if the suit meets the requirements of diversity
jurisdiction, the court must look to the citizenship of the
parties at the time the action was filed and at the time of
removal.” Audi Performance & Racing, LLC v.
Kasberger, 273 F.Supp.2d 1220, 1225 (M.D. Ala. 2003).
“For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile;
mere residence in the State is not sufficient.” Mas
v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir.
1974). “[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.” Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v.
Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). The factors
considered in determining domicile include home ownership,
driver's license, voting registration, location of
family, location of business and where taxes are paid.
See Turner v. Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut.
Fire Ins. Co., No. 307-CV-374-J-32TEM, 2007 WL 3104930,
at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2007); see also
McCormick, 293 F.3d at 1258. No. plaintiffs may be
domiciliaries of the same state as any defendant.
Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th
procedures for removal are statutory. 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
Generally, a party has thirty days from the date of service
of the initial pleading or summons to remove a case to
federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). But a party can
remove a case “within 30 days after receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an
amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it
may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has
become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
lodges three arguments for remand. First, Michaels'
driver's license does not constitute an “other
paper” for removal purposes. Second, Uber's removal
was untimely. And third, the documents do not prove complete
diversity by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court will
address each argument in turn.
argues Michaels' license cannot be an “other
paper” under Section 1446(b), and cannot support
Uber's removal efforts. Tillman asserts his license does
not qualify as an “other paper” because it is
unauthenticated and four-years-old, and, because it was
obtained by Uber before the onset of litigation. These
arguments are non-starters. To analyze Tillman's
arguments, the Court must first discern whether a
driver's license can qualify as an “other
paper” under any circumstance. Neither party seriously
contests that it can.
Eleventh Circuit has found that the first three items capable
of supporting removal under Section 1446(b) - “amended
pleading[s], motion[s] [or] order[s]” - are
“self-explanatory.” Lowery v. Alabama Power
Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1212 n. 62 (11th Cir. 2007).
Additionally, it notes that “[w]hat constitutes
‘other paper' . . . has been developed
judicially.” Id. Courts within the Eleventh
Circuit have interpreted the term broadly. See Lambertson
v. Go Fit, LLC, 918 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1285 (S.D. Fla.
2013); see alsoWilson v. Target Corp.,
2010 WL 3632794, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2010). And while
the issue of driver's licenses has never been fully
ironed out, requests for admissions, settlement offers and
other correspondence have all been found to be “other
paper.” Lowery, 483 F.3d at 1212 n. 62. These
documents all have a natural tendency to shed light on the
propriety of diversity jurisdiction by revealing either a
party's domicile or the amount in controversy. The Court
finds a driver's license to be of similar usefulness