Opinion ID: 774946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complete Diversity of Citizenship

Text: 11 The district court held that Defendants failed to meet their burden to establish diversity jurisdiction because their notice of removal did not allege facts sufficient to establish complete diversity of citizenship. The notice of removal stated that Plaintiffs were California residents, that Pfizer was a corporate citizen of Delaware and New York, and that[n]one of the other defendants is a citizen of the State of California. Like Plaintiffs' complaint, the notice of removal did not affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of corporate defendants Warner-Lambert, Care Technologies, or Hogil; it merely alleged that they were not citizens of California. 12 The district court held that Pfizer's failure to specify the corporate citizenship of its three co-defendants meant that Defendants had failed to meet their burden of proving that the parties are of [completely] diverse citizenship. Although, at this stage of the case, the defendants were merely required to allege (not to prove) diversity, the district court was concerned about a legitimate issue. Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties. See Whitmire v. Victus Ltd. T/A Master Design Furniture, 212 F.3d 885, 887 (5th Cir. 2000) ([I]n a diversity action, the plaintiff must state all parties' citizenships such that the existence of complete diversity can be confirmed.) (quoting Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 177 F.3d 210, 222 n.13 (3d Cir. 1999)); see also 5 C.A. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1208 at 101 (2d ed. 1990). There is, however, a more serious pleading defect. 13 Plaintiffs' complaint and Pfizer's notice of removal both state that Plaintiffs were residents of California. But the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency. To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the United States. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 827, 828 (1989). The natural person's state citizenship is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person's domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return. See Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state. See, e.g., Weible v. United States, 244 F.2d 158, 163 (9th Cir. 1957) (Residence is physical, whereas domicile is generally a compound of physical presence plus an intention to make a certain definite place one's permanent abode, though, to be sure, domicile often hangs on the slender thread of intent alone, as for instance where one is a wanderer over the earth. Residence is not an immutable condition of domicile.). In this case, neither Plaintiffs' complaint nor Pfizer's notice of removal made any allegation regarding Plaintiffs' state citizenship. Since the party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof, see Lew, 797 F.2d at 749, Pfizer's failure to specify Plaintiffs' state citizenship was fatal to Defendants' assertion of diversity jurisdiction. 14 The district court noted, however, and we agree, that Pfizer could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1653 (Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.); Jacobs v. Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc., 230 F.3d 565, 568 n.3 (2d Cir. 2000) ([A]n inadequate pleading does not in itself constitute an actual defect of federal jurisdiction.); see also 15 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice §§ 102.17[1], at 102-31 (3d ed. 2001) (Moore's). Indeed, Plaintiffs have never disputed diversity of citizenship. The district court therefore examined Pfizer's arguments as to why the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C.§§ 1332 was satisfied. We follow suit.