Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01698/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01698-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity - Legal Malpractice

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Branon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Larry Debus, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-CV-1698-PHX-FJM

ORDER

I

Pursuant to our order docketed October 11, 2005 (doc. 74), all claims were dismissed

as to defendant Estate of Thomas A. Thinnes and defendant Bruce Lowe; the 42 U.S.C. §§

1983 and 1985, and fraud claims were dismissed as to defendant Robert Owens; and the §§

1983 and 1985, legal malpractice, and fraud claims were dismissed as to defendants Larry

Debus and Debus, Kazan & Westerhausen Ltd. ("Debus Defendants"). The conversion

claims against Debus Defendants and defendant Owens remain, and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is the

sole remaining basis for jurisdiction. Accordingly, we requested the parties to brief the issue

of whether diversity of citizenship exists. Order at 8 (doc. 74). We therefore have before us

Debus Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 75) and defendant Owens' joinder thereto (doc.

76), plaintiff's Response (doc. 79), defendant Owens' Reply (doc. 82), Debus Defendants'

Case 2:04-cv-01698-FJM Document 87 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 We consider plaintiff's Further Response to Debus Defendants' Reply to the extent

that it responds to the exhibits that were newly introduced in Debus Defendants' Reply.

- 2 -

Reply (doc. 84), and plaintiff's Further Response (doc. 86).1 We also have before us

plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Fully Oppose the Motions to Dismiss (doc. 80) and

defendant Owens' Response (doc. 83); and defendant Estate of Thomas A. Thinnes'

unopposed Motion for an Order Authorizing Entry of Final Judgment Against the Estate

(doc. 77) and Defendant Lowe's joinder thereto (doc. 78).

II

Debus Defendants filed their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

on October 21, 2005. Therefore, plaintiff had until November 23, 2005, which includes the

30 day response period and the 3 day mailing period, to file a response. LRCiv 7.2(c), 12.1,

56.1. Plaintiff and defendants appear to have mistakenly relied upon the shorter response

period of LRCiv 7.2(c). Accordingly, plaintiff's declaration filed November 21, 2005 was

timely filed. We therefore deny as moot plaintiff's motion for a time extension (doc. 80).

III

Plaintiff asserts that we have diversity jurisdiction because the matter in controversy

exceeds $75,000 and it is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Second

Amended Complaint at 12. To show state citizenship for diversity purposes, a person must

be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in that state. Kantor v. Wellesley

Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). "A person's domicile is her permanent

home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return."

Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The diversity is required

at the time the lawsuit is filed. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986). The party

asserting diversity bears the burden of proof. Id. at 749. On a challenge to allegations of

jurisdictional facts, that party must support those allegations by competent proof. 15 James

Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 102.14 (3d ed. 2005).

Case 2:04-cv-01698-FJM Document 87 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Plaintiff asserts that he is a citizen of the state of California. From this, we infer that

plaintiff believes himself to be a citizen of the Untied States, but plaintiff fails to assert

United States citizenship directly. Plaintiff sets forth declarations by plaintiff's attorney,

Roger Hanson, a letter from plaintiff's mother, Dolores Branon, and a declaration by plaintiff,

all of which essentially state that plaintiff moved to California with his family when his

father was transferred there with the United States Navy; that plaintiff attended high school

in California; that plaintiff lived in California except for the periods in which he lived in

Mexico and Arizona; that plaintiff lived in California when he was arrested; and that plaintiff

has since been incarcerated in Arizona and California. Response to Motions to Dismiss at

3-6, Response to Motions to Dismiss, Exhibit 1; Declaration of Mark David Branon at 1.

Defendants argue that plaintiff is domiciled in Arizona, and that plaintiff has not

satisfied his burden of proving that plaintiff is domiciled in California. Motion to Dismiss

at 1-2; Joinder at 2. Defendants also submit evidence that plaintiff's spouse, Shawna Branon,

who recently petitioned for dissolution of the marriage, owns a home in Arizona. Debus

Defendants' Reply, Exhibit 1. Shawna Branon declared this property to be community

property, but purchased it in her own name. Id.; Plaintiff's Further Response, Exhibit 2.

Plaintiff had from October 11, 2005, when we asked parties to brief the jurisdictional

issue, until November 23, 2005, when plaintiff's response was due, to gather evidence to

prove the jurisdictional facts. Plaintiff fails to submit any evidence–such as a drivers license,

voter registration card, utility bills, or tax returns–to corroborate plaintiff's self-serving

declarations and failed to timely request an extension of time to gather and submit this

evidence. Moreover, declarations submitted by plaintiff suggest that plaintiff has resided in

California, Arizona, and Mexico at various times prior to the filing of this action, and even

state that defendant had been "occupying domiciles from time to time in Arizona." Response

to Motions to Dismiss at 4. Accordingly, while it is possible that defendant was a citizen of

California at the time of the filing of this action, we conclude that plaintiff failed to prove the

requisite jurisdictional facts, and therefore we dismiss this action for lack of subject matter

Case 2:04-cv-01698-FJM Document 87 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Due to the early stage of this litigation, and because we have dismissed all federal

claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). State court is the appropriate forum for those claims.

3

 Plaintiff failed to establish his California citizenship, and therefore we need not

consider the effect that plaintiffs' incarceration in Arizona would have on that citizenship.

However, we agree that a prisoner's incarceration in a different state does not, without the

requisite intent to remain, alter his citizenship. See, e.g., Singletary v. Cont'l Illinois Nat'l

Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1236, 1238 (7th Cir. 1993); Jones v. Hadican, 552

F.2d 249, 250 (8th Cir. 1977).

- 4 -

jurisdiction (docs. 75, 76).2 Plaintiffs' incarceration in Arizona had no effect on this

determination.3

IV

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Debus Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction (doc. 75).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Robert Owens' Motion to Dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. 76).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot defendant Estate of Thomas A.

Thinnes' Motion for an Order Authorizing Entry of Final Judgment (doc. 77).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot defendant Bruce Lowe's Motion

for an Order Authorizing Entry of Final Judgment (doc. 78).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiffs' motion for an

extension of time (doc. 80).

All matters having been decided, the clerk is directed to enter final judgment.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01698-FJM Document 87 Filed 01/20/06 Page 4 of 4