18 . Id.,n 72-79. 19 . Id., ¶¶ 80-87. 20 . Id.,m 88-95.. 21 . Id., ¶¶ 96-104. 22 . Id., ¶¶ 105-115. 23 . Id., ¶¶ 116-126. 24 . Id., ¶¶ 127-136. 25 . Id., ¶¶ 137-143. 26 . Id., ¶¶ 144-153. 27 . Id., ¶¶ 154-170. 28 . Id., «171-177. 29 . Petition, ¶ 7. 30 . Id. 31 . Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Petitioner CarMax’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ("RJN”), Docket No. 14 (Feb. 25, 2015). 32 . RJN at 1. 33 . MTD Opposition at 7-8. 34 . MTD Reply at 4. 35 . Petition at 1. 36 . Petition, ¶ 3. 37 . Petition, ¶ 3; see also Complaint at 29. 38 . The petition adequately alleges Hernandez's and CarMax's respective citizenship. An individual like Hernandez is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled. See Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569, 35 S.Ct. 164, 59 L.Ed. 360 (1915) (<HOLDING>); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853,
holding that the district court did not err in failing to address the defendant personally to determine whether she understood the rights she was waiving by admitting that she violated the conditions of her probation holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that a person is a citizen of the state in which she has her domicile ie a permanent home where she intends to remain or to which she intends to return holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination