Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01690/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
The City of Durant
Appellee
Welton Tucker
Appellant

Document Text:

I 

FILED - Unit:ed States Co~rt ~f Appeals Tenth C1rcmt 

UNITED -STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 1 61989 

WELTON TUCKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

THE CITY OF DURANT, a municipal 

corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

> ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) No. 87-1690 

) (D.C. No. 86-120-C) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and JENKINS,** Chief 

District Judge. 

**The Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

In this lawsuit, the plaintiff has sued his former employer, 

defendant City of Durant, for damages suffered when the defendant 

allegedly breached the employment contract between the defendant 

and the plaintiff. A jury trial was held on May 4 and 11, 1987. 

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's presentation of his case, the 

district court granted the defendant's motion for a directed 

verdict. It is from this order that the plaintiff now appeals. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estbppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-1690 Document: 010110024635 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 1 
1 

We are unable to decide the merits of this appeal because it 

appears that federal subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. 

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that jurisdiction in 

the federal court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because of the 

diversity of citizenship of the parties. The defendant is a 

municipality in Oklahoma and the plaintiff claimed to be a citizen 

of Texas at the time suit was filed. In its answer, the defendant 

denied that the plaintiff was a Texas citizen. The defendant 

continued to challenge the plaintiff's assertion of Texas 

citizenship in the pre-trial memorandum and pre-trial order. The 

first issue of law listed as unresolved in the pre-trial order was 

"whether this court has jurisdiction over this action." 

The jurisdictional issue was not determined at any time 

during the district court proceedings. The defendant attempted to 

address the issue at the trial during its cross-examination of the 

plaintiff. However, the district court ordered that such inquiry 

be stopped. The court apparently concluded that the diversity 

issue should have been raised earlier by a motion of the 

defendant. As 

determined . that 

no 

it 

considered at trial. 

such 

was 

motion had 

improper to 

been submitted, the court 

allow the issue to be 

The law concerning 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity jurisdiction of 

the federal courts is well settled. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) 

directs that "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties 

or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 

matter, the court shall dismiss the action." A court lacking 

jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the action 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1690 Document: 010110024635 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 2 
f 

whenever the lack of jurisdiction becomes apparent. Tuck v. 

United States Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988); 

Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 

1974). If the parties fail to raise the jurisdictional issue, the 

court, including an appellate court, has the duty to raise the 

question of lack of subject matter jurisdiction on its own motion. 

See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de 

Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Tuck, 859 F.2d at 844; Basso, 

495 F.2d at 909. Lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and 

jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a federal court by the 

consent, inaction, or stipulation of the parties. See id. 

Diversity of citizenship is determined as of the time the 

lawsuit is filed and cannot be disturbed by subsequent events. 

Johnston v. Cordell Nat'l Bank, 421 F.2d 1310, 1311 (10th Cir. 

1970). The party invoking the federal court's jurisdiction has 

the burden of proving that federal jurisdiction does exist. 

Basso, 495 F.2d at 909; Getty Oil Corp., Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. 

Insurance Co. of North Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Since the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, there 

is a presumption against the existence of jurisdiction. Basso, 

495 F.2d at 909. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, state 

citizenship is the equivalent of domicile. Crowley v. Glaze, 710 

F.2d 676, 678 (10th Cir. 1983). Two elements must be shown to 

effect a change of domicile. First, one must reside in a new 

place and, second, one must manifest the intention to remain there 

indefinitely. Id. A "floating intention" to return to the 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1690 Document: 010110024635 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 3 
I ' 

- original domicile does not preclude the establishment of a new 

domicile. Id. 

The defendant has challenged the claimed citizenship of the 

plaintiff. Our review of the record discloses that the particular 

state citizenship of the plaintiff is uncertain. Further lnquiry 

by the district court into this matter is necessary. 

The judgment of the district court is VACATED and the cause 

is REMANDED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 87-1690 Document: 010110024635 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 4