19-2854-cv Emiabata v. Farmers Ins. Corp. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. SYLVIA EMIABATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, 19-2854-cv v. FARMERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, FARMERS TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Sylvia Emiabata, pro se, Fairfield, CT. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: R. David Lane Jr., Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C., New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Victor A. Bolden, Judge). 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Sylvia Emiabata, proceeding pro se, appeals an August 8, 2019 judgment of the District Court granting the motion to dismiss of Defendants-Appellees Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Corporation Insurance Company (collectively, “Farmers”) for insufficient pleading of subject matter jurisdiction, service of process, and personal jurisdiction. Emiabata’s Complaint raised state law claims of bad-faith dealing, negligence, breach of contract, vicarious liability, and unjust enrichment arising from a car accident in Tennessee. She alleges that she is a citizen of Connecticut, and that Farmers are citizens of Texas and California. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 1 When considering the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 “and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (diversity jurisdiction). Section 1332 requires that “all plaintiffs must be citizens of states diverse from those of all defendants.” Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Retirement Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2014). “An individual’s citizenship, within the meaning of the diversity statute, is determined by his domicile . . . [in other words] the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals