Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's 'state wherein they reside' clause limits federal courts' diversity jurisdiction over corporate parties based on their citizenship and constitutional interpretation

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5 and 30.2, I, Nicholas Harding, Petitioner pro se in the above-captioned case, respectfully request a 45-day extension of time, to and including February 1, 2024, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this case. The judgment was entered on September 5, 2023, and the petition for rehearing was denied on September 19, 2023. Therefore, the current deadline to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is December 18, 2023. This Court's jurisdiction would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The denial of rehearing as well as the initial rejection of the appeal are unreported and are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. The reason for this request is to ensure adequate time for the preparation of a comprehensive and wellstructured petition, given the complexity and legal significance of the issues involved in this case. 1. This case is primarily concerning the current application of subject-matter diversity jurisdiction and how it conflicts with Article 3 Section 2 of the constitution as well as the 14 Amendment’s “state wherein they reside clause. 2. The Petitioner brought a case against Google LLC in Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit, the case was removed by Google to the Middle District of Florida. The Petitioner objected to the removal on the grounds that the Respondent was not a diverse party pursuant to the “state wherein they reside” provision of the 14th Amendment. The Middle District overruled, ordering that the case proceed to arbitration, staying and administratively closing the case. 3. Petitioner appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the Middle District lacked jurisdiction to issue their order when diversity was analyzed with a constitutional approach instead of a statutory approach. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order compelling arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(3). Petitioner moved for rehearing on the grounds that the order conclusively determined the disputed question and was entirely separable from the merits of the case, which made it appealable. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the motion for rehearing without comment on September 19th, 2023. . This case is one which raises issues of great public importance, as the federal courts have been exercising jurisdiction over parties that are not diverse when their citizenship is analyzed under the 14th Amendment. Such an analysis has not been suggested previously as corporations and other artificial entities have sought to reap the benefits of rights extended under the 14th amendment, while simultaneously avoiding the provision of the same amendment which could serve to force them to be held accountable in state courts. 5. Petitioner had substantial time obligations during the 90-day period preceding the deadline as a law student and full-time employee at a nonprofit organization. The 45-day extension would serve to grant the petitioner additional time to ensure compliance with court rules and arrange for review of the petition. Accordingly, there is good cause for this motion, and I respectfully request a 45-day extension for filing the petition for a writ of certiorari to and including February 1, 2024. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas Harding 3859 English Colony Dr. N. Jacksonville, FL 32257 313-670-3068 December 7, 2023 Petitioner pro se Exhibit A USCA11 Case: 23-11974 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2023 Page: 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Appeals Hor the Eleventh Circuit No. 23-11974 NICHOLAS HARDING, versus G