Bickerstaff et al v. Bickerstaff et al, No. 2:2015cv03639 - Document 14 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying Carolyn Bickerstaff's MOTION 7 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 2/22/16. (jjs)

Download PDF
Bickerstaff et al v. Bickerstaff et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LORETTA LOIS BICKERSTAFF APPEARING HEREIN THROUGH HER LEGALLY APPOINTED AGENT IN FACT AND MANDATARY, GERALD GREGORY BICKERSTAFF CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-3639 CAROLYN KRIDER BICKERSTAFF, ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Plaintiff Loretta Lois Bickerstaff filed this state-law property dispute against her sister-in-law Carolyn Krider Bickerstaff and Carolyn’s attorney, J ule R. Herbert and J ule R. Herbert, J r., P.C., on December 1, 20 15. 1 Plaintiff invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff alleges that she is a citizen of Texas, that Carolyn Bickerstaff is a citizen of Louisiana, and that J ule Herbert and J ule R. Herbert, J r., P.C. are citizens of Alabam a. 2 Carolyn Bickerstaff now m oves to dism iss plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction. 3 According to Carolyn Bickerstaff, plaintiff is 1 See generally R. Doc. 1. 2 Id. at 1-2 ¶¶ 1-2. 3 R. Doc. 9. Dockets.Justia.com also a litigant in Louisiana state court action, and plaintiff alleged in that lawsuit that she was citizen of Louisiana. 4 As a result, plaintiff argues, the rebuttable presum ption of “continuing dom icile” applies here. See generally Preston v. Tenet Healthsy stem Mem ’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 793, 80 1 (5th Cir. 20 0 7). To rebut the presumption of continuing dom icile and establish a new dom icile, plaintiff m ust now dem onstrate her (1) residence in a new state and (2) intention to rem ain in that state indefinitely. See id. In opposition to Carolyn Bickerstaff’s m otion to dismiss, plaintiff explains that she m oved from Louisiana to Texas in September 20 14. 5 Plaintiff subm its the following docum ents to demonstrate that she has relocated to Texas and intends to remain there permanently: • General Warranty Deed for a home located in San Antonio, Texas, dated August 20 14; 6 • Texas identification card, issued in October 20 14; 7 • Texas voter registration card, issued in November 20 14; 8 and 4 See R. Doc. 7-1. 5 R. Doc. 9 at 2. 6 R. Doc. 9-3. 7 R. Doc. 9-4. 8 R. Doc. 9-2. • 20 14 federal income tax return documents, which lists San Antonio, Texas and plaintiff’s hom e address. 9 After reviewing these documents, the Court is satisfied that plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Texas. Plaintiff has sufficiently dem onstrated her residence in Texas, as well as her intention to rem ain there indefinitely. See id. Because plaintiff’s state of citizenship is different from the defendants’ states of citizenship, the Court has subject m atter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Accordingly, DENIES Carolyn Bickerstaff’s m otion to dism iss. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of February, 20 16. ___ ____________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 9 R. Doc. 9-5.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.