NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 18, 19) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE

___________________________________ 

: 

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND : 

SOCIETY, FSB, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : Civil No. 11-3145 (RBK/JS) 

: 

v. : ORDER

: 

BRIAN T. BARR, LYNNE BARR, : 

KAELYN BARR, et. al., : 

: 

Defendants. : 

___________________________________ : 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the motion of Wilmington Savings 

Fund Society, FSB (“Plaintiff”) for judgment of default on its mortgage foreclosure claim against 

Defendants, Doc. No. 19, and Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss certain Defendants; and 

IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that the Clerk entered default in this case on 

August 15, 2012; and 

IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that Plaintiff alleges that Kaelyn Barr, 

Mr. Kaelyn Barr, Evan Barr, Shea Barr, and Cameron Barr “reside[] at either the Mortgaged 

Premises of 172 Cohawkin Road, Clarksboro, New Jersey, Township of East Greenwich, 

Gloucester County or 731 Providence Road, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355,” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 

5, 6, 8, 10, and that Kaelyn, Evan, Shea, and Cameron Barr are all “citizen[s] of either 

Pennsylvania or New Jersey,” Id. at ¶¶ 15-19, and that the Amended Complaint does not allege 

the citizenship of Mr. Kaelyn Barr; and 

Case 1:11-cv-03145-RBK-JS Document 20 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 166
IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that Plaintiff later avers that “none of 

the Defendants occupy the Mortgaged Premises,” Doc. No. 18; 

IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that, for Kaelyn Barr, Mr. Kaelyn 

Barr, Evan Barr, Shea Barr, and Cameron, the process server’s affidavits indicate that Brian T. 

Barr was served on their behalf, and also explain that “I also attempted to serve the defendant 

listed above at the property address but [s]he does not live there,” Doc. No. 15; and 

IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT that Plaintiff moves to dismiss 

Defendants Mrs. Evan Barr, Mr. or Mrs. Shea Barr, and Mr. or Mrs. Cameron Barr, “because 

such Defendants do not exist,” Doc. No. 18; and 

THE COURT NOTING that “[b]efore entering a default judgment against a party that 

has not filed responsive pleadings, ‘the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its 

jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties,’” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Hewitt, No. 07-

4536, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90719, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2008) (quoting Williams v. Life Sav. 

& Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986)); and 

THE COURT NOTING FURTHER that “mere residency in a state is insufficient for 

purposes of diversity,” see Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1300 (3d Cir. 1972) (citing Sun 

Printing & Publ’g Ass’n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904))1; and

                                                       

1

 The Third Circuit has established the following standard to determine a party’s citizenship: 

Citizenship is synonymous with domicile, and the domicile of an individual is his true, fixed and permanent 

home and place of habitation. It is the place to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of 

returning. In determining an individual’s domicile, a court considers several factors, including 

declarations, exercise of political rights, payment of personal taxes, house of residence, and place of 

business. Other factors to be considered may include location of brokerage and bank accounts, location of 

spouse and family, membership in unions and other organizations, and driver’s license and vehicle 

registration. 

McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Case 1:11-cv-03145-RBK-JS Document 20 Filed 05/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 167
THE COURT FINDING that Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded the citizenship of all 

Defendants, and therefore has not properly alleged the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over this 

matter; and 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause, upon pain of dismissal, by 

written submission on or before May 18, 2012, why this matter should not be dismissed for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction; and 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment 

(Doc. No. 19) is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendants 

Mrs. Evan Barr, Mr. or Mrs. Shea Barr, and Mr. or Mrs. Cameron Barr (Doc. No. 18) is 

GRANTED.

Date: 5/3/2012 /s/ Robert B. Kugler 

 ROBERT B. KUGLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-03145-RBK-JS Document 20 Filed 05/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 168