P filed an action on March 20, 1987 in District Court of MA against D.
P alleged federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship. P's complaint stated that he resided in MA.
D filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that complete diversity of citizenship did not exist. D alleged that P, like D, was a citizen of NH.
P asked the court to amend his complaint to assert FL citizenship.
Procedural History:
District Court granted D's motion to dismiss, lack of complete diversity of citizenship.
1st Cir COA affirmed, granted D's motion to dismiss, lack of complete diversity of citizenship.
Issues:
What issues may a court explore in determining a party's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction?
Holding/Rule:
A court may look at where a party exercises its civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, obtains licenses, joins clubs, and works/owns businesses in determining citizenship.
Reasoning:
Evidence for NH citizenship…
Owned property in NH
Maintained telephone in NH
Had NH driver's license
Registered to vote and voted in NH
Stated address was in NH on corporate reports.
Evidence for FL citizenship…
Owned property in FL
Had bank accounts in FL
Had FL driver's license
Ran a horse farm in FL
Belonged to several clubs in FL
Listed FL residence on federal tax returns.
Domicile is determined for purposes of diversity jurisdiction at the time suit is filed.
The burden of proof is on the P to support allegations of jurisdiction with competent proof when the allegations are challenged by the D.
A party may reside in more than one state but can be domiciled, for diversity purposes, in only one.
P's registration to vote and actual voting in NH and P's representation of NH residence on corporate reports are compelling evidence.
This evidence offers significant countervailing evidence of intent to remain in NH and maintain NH domicile.
Dissent:
None given.
Notes:
Close case? The court was not "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed", and thus was required to affirm.
It seems that the parties agreed that P started out domiciled in NH. In order to change domicile, a party must demonstrate residence in a new state and an intention to remain in that state indefinitely.
If the court were doing a de novo review, probably would have picked FL.
Whichever way the district court ruled, the appellate court would have affirmed.
