Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Bruce Remington filed a pro se personal injury complaint on July 8, 2026, alleging that Dr. Gregory Gibb permanently blinded him during a routine cataract surgery on July 10, 2025. Remington sought $1 million in damages and asserted diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, claiming citizenship in both Oregon and California. His complaint listed a Eureka, California address on the first page and civil cover sheet, but an Oregon address (Corvallis) under his signature on the certification page. Remington made no factual allegations against co-defendant Amelia Burroughs, Dr.
Gibb’s former attorney. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(5), challenging Remington’s claimed Oregon domicile and arguing service was defective because he mailed the complaint only to Burroughs’s former law office, where she was no longer employed and unauthorized to accept service for Dr. Gibb. Remington opposed, asserting he had been domiciled in Oregon for approximately three years, citing joint ownership of a Corvallis property, payment of property taxes, and investments in the property for permanent residency. He explained his California address was used only for reliable mail receipt while he temporarily stayed with his ex-wife in Eureka. Defendants replied with a Facebook post from July 10, 2025, showing Remington describing his residence and business as centered in Eureka, and a Zillow listing showing the Oregon property for sale.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Applying the factual challenge framework from Leite v. Crane Co., the court found Remington failed to carry his burden of proving Oregon domicile by a preponderance of the evidence.
The complaint and opposition contained numerous inconsistencies: Remington listed his Eureka address on the complaint’s first page, civil cover sheet, return envelopes, and proof of service; he referenced owning property in Eureka and currently living there with his ex-wife; and he admitted paying California taxes. The court credited Defendants’ extrinsic evidence (Facebook post, Zillow listing) showing Remington’s life centered in Eureka. Remington’s sole supporting fact—ownership of the Oregon property—was insufficient given his California property ownership and physical presence in California.
His statements of future intent to retire in Oregon were given little weight against contrary objective facts. Because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was warranted, the court declined to reach the Rule 12(b)(5) service issue. The dismissal was with leave to amend within 28 days, with a warning that failure to amend could result in dismissal with prejudice. The court also noted that if Remington amends and makes a prima facie showing of Oregon domicile, jurisdictional discovery (including deposition and financial records) may be granted.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff bears the burden of proving diversity jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence when a defendant mounts a factual challenge with extrinsic evidence.
- Domicile requires both physical presence and intent to remain permanently or indefinitely; future intent to relocate is insufficient to establish current domicile.
- Objective facts (addresses used on court filings, tax payments, property ownership, social media posts) outweigh self-serving statements of intent.
- Listing multiple addresses and inconsistent citizenship allegations across court documents undermines a plaintiff’s jurisdictional showing.
- Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) deprives the court of authority to rule on alternative grounds such as insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5).
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to pro se plaintiffs’ diversity jurisdiction allegations when defendants present a factual challenge with extrinsic evidence. The court’s analysis reinforces Ninth Circuit precedent that domicile is determined by objective facts at the time of filing, not by post-hoc assertions of intent. The decision also highlights the practical consequences of inconsistent address usage across court filings, return envelopes, and proof of service documents.
The leave to amend with a warning about jurisdictional discovery signals the court’s willingness to entertain a properly supported jurisdictional allegation but puts the plaintiff on notice that his financial records, tax filings, and personal testimony will be subject to examination. The court’s refusal to reach the service issue underscores the jurisdictional primacy of Rule 12(b)(1) over procedural defenses. The ruling is a practical warning that citizenship for diversity purposes means domicile, not a preferred mailing address or a future retirement plan.
Lawyers assessing removal or original federal jurisdiction should assemble objective evidence about residence, taxes, property, business activity, and intent as of the filing date. Inconsistent addresses across pleadings, envelopes, and proofs of service can become substantive jurisdictional evidence. Because subject-matter jurisdiction came first, the court properly stopped before deciding the alternative service challenge. The dismissal allowed amendment within 28 days. It did not finally resolve domicile or service, and the court warned that a sufficient amended showing could lead to jurisdictional discovery, including financial and tax records.