Opinion ID: 8312446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complete Diversity of Citizenship Analysis

Text: Defendant TriNet contends that the parties are completely diverse because it is a citizen of California, Notice of Removal ¶ 8; defendant Trustify is a citizen of Delaware and the Commonwealth of Virginia, id. ¶ 9 ; and the plaintiff is a citizen of the District of Columbia, see id. ¶¶ 4-7 . The plaintiff concedes that defendant TriNet is a citizen of California, see Pl.'s Resp. at 2, and based on defendant TriNet's representations that it is incorporated and has its principal place of business in California, see Notice of Removal ¶ 8; see also id. , Ex. 5 (Certificate of Status from the Secretary of State for the State of California identifying TriNet HR III, Inc. as a California corporation), 5 the Court finds that defendant TriNet is a citizen of California for diversity purposes, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1) (providing that a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every State ... by which it has been incorporated and of the State ... where it has its principal place of business). However, the plaintiff disputes defendant TriNet's position as to his citizenship and asserts that he was a citizen of California when he filed [h]is [ ] Complaint and when [d]efendant TriNet filed its Notice of Removal. Pl.'s Resp. at 1. Therefore, the plaintiff argues that diversity jurisdiction cannot exist because both he and defendant TriNet  are citizens of the same state. See Pl.'s Resp. at 1-2. 6 An individual has citizenship in a state for diversity purposes if he is an American citizen and is domiciled in the state. CostCommand, LLC v. WH Adm'rs, Inc. , 820 F.3d 19 , 21 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain , 490 U.S. 826 , 828, 109 S.Ct. 2218 , 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989) ). Domicile is determined by two factors: physical presence in a state, and intent to remain there for an unspecified or indefinite period of time. Prakash v. American Univ. , 727 F.2d 1174 , 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Any analysis of a party's domicile 'must be fact-specific,'  Lopes v. Jetsetdc, LLC , 4 F.Supp.3d 238 , 241 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Wagshal v. Rigler , 947 F.Supp. 10 , 13 (D.D.C. 1996) ), and [i]ndicia of domiciliary status may include a person's current residence, a sworn declaration of domicile, ownership of real and personal property, voting registration, bank accounts, automobile registration, driver's license[,] [ ] club membership, Core VCT Plc v. Hensley , 59 F.Supp.3d 123 , 126 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing United States v. Williams , 825 F.Supp.2d 117 , 124 (D.D.C. 2011) ), location of spouse and family, ... place of employment or business, and payment of taxes, Mayer Brown LLP v. Dulcich, Inc. , No. 12-cv-1318, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28748 , at  (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2013) (quoting Lew v. Moss , 797 F.2d 747 , 750 (9th Cir. 1986) ). Defendant TriNet argues that the plaintiff was and remains a domiciliary of the District of Columbia because [h]e filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia arising out of his former employment [ ]here, Notice of Removal ¶ 7; his LinkedIn page states that he is located in Washington, DC, id. ¶ 6; [h]e has shown an ongoing presence in the District of Columbia based upon serving as President and Founder of [a business], which is located in the District of Columbia, id. ¶ 7; [h]e states in his [first amended complaint] that he was and remains a student at Georgetown University, which is located in the District of Columbia, id. ; and [t]he driver's license he supplied to [defendant] Trustify for his employment with that company ... was issued by the District of Columbia and by its terms of issue [is] valid until 2021, id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff argues in response that he was a citizen of California when he filed [h]is pro se Complaint and when [d]efendant TriNet filed its Notice of Removal because [p]rior to attending Georgetown [ ], [he] was an eighteen-year resident of California; [he] returned to California while taking a medical leave of absence from his studies, where he got a job, obtained a driver's license, registered to vote, and filed taxes as a California resident; and [w]hen TriNet filed its Notice of Removal, [he] had no idea if and when he would be returning to Georgetown [ ] or the District of Columbia, and he in fact did not return to Georgetown until [o]ver a year later. Pl.'s Resp. at 1. He further argues that his conduct bolsters the presumption that students are domiciled in their home state and not where they attend university. Id. at 2.  The Court will first address the significance of the plaintiff's allegation that he was an eighteen-year resident of California prior to attending Georgetown. Id. at 1. Specifically, the plaintiff represents that [f]rom June 1992 through August 2011, the latter date being one year after he enrolled at Georgetown, [his] legal residence was in California, as [he] maintained a California driver's license, paid state taxes in California, and voted in state elections in 2011. Id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶¶ 1-2. Defendant TriNet does not dispute these facts, see generally Defs.' Reply, and the Court finds that these undisputed facts are indicia of domiciliary status sufficient to establish that prior to attending Georgetown, the plaintiff was domiciled in California, see Core VCT , 59 F.Supp.3d at 126 . Having reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was domiciled in California at least up to the point that he began attending Georgetown, the question for the Court becomes whether defendant TriNet has shown that the plaintiff established a domicile in the District at some point prior to filing his suit or prior to the time of removal. [C]ourts apply a presumption of continuing domicile, so that domicile in one place remains until domicile in a new place is established. Id. ; see also Desmare v. United States , 93 U.S. 605 , 610, 23 L.Ed. 959 (1876) (A domicile once existing continues until another is acquired.). Once a party has established a domicile, the burden of demonstrating that a new domicile has been established lies with the person seeking to establish the change. 6 James Wm. Moore, et al. , Moore's Federal Practice § 102.35[6] (3d ed. 1999). Analyzing the first element of domicile-physical presence in a state, Prakash , 727 F.2d at 1180 -it is undisputed that between August 2010 and May 2016, the plaintiff resided in the District for some period of time while he was attending Georgetown, see Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 3. However, it is also undisputed that the plaintiff lived outside of the District for at least some part of that time, see id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 3 (Between August 2010 and May 2016, I lived in various locations in Washington, DC and Virginia . (emphasis added) ), and that at the time the initial Complaint was filed and at the time of removal, the plaintiff resided in California, see id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶¶ 15, 19, having returned there in May 2016, see id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 8. Nevertheless, the plaintiff's residency in the District offers some support for defendant TriNet's position. See Naegele v. Albers , 355 F.Supp.2d 129 , 134 (D.D.C. 2005) (residency is indicative of domicile). However, as defendant TriNet acknowledges, see Notice of Removal ¶ 5,  residence alone is insufficient to establish the citizenship necessary for diversity jurisdiction, see Novak v. Capital Mgmt. & Dev. Corp. , 452 F.3d 902 , 906 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt , 722 F.2d 779 , 792 n.20 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ). 7 The Court next considers the second element of domicile-intent to remain [in a state] for an unspecified or indefinite period of time. Prakash , 727 F.2d at 1180 . In assessing the intent of college students,  [i]t is generally presumed that a student who attends a university in a state other than the student's home state intends to return home on completion of studies. However, the presumption is rebuttable, and a college student may establish the requisite intent to establish a new domicile in the place where he or she is enrolled in school. A student must evidence a post-graduate commitment to remain in the school state to rebut the presumption. It has been held that a student who has not yet decided where he or she will reside after finishing studies, as opposed to forming a definite intent to remain in the school state, has not rebutted the presumption of retention of the former domicile. Moore et al. , supra , § 102.37[6]; see also Hakkila v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. , 745 F.Supp. 988 , 990 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (Courts have consistently recognized that out-of-state college students are temporary residents and not domiciliaries of the states in which they attend college[.]); Bradley v. Zissimos , 721 F.Supp. 738 , 739 n.3 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (It is generally presumed that a student who attends a university in a state other than the student's 'home' state intends to return 'home' upon completion of studies.). Applying these principles here, the Court must presume that the plaintiff intend[ed] to return [to California] on completion of his studies, and to rebut this presumption, defendant TriNet must produce evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff had a post-graduate commitment to remain in the [District]. See Moore et al. , supra , § 102.37[6]. The Court concludes that defendant TriNet has failed to rebut the presumption that the plaintiff intends to return to California after completing his studies. Defendant TriNet primarily emphasizes that the plaintiff has maintained ... a business in the District and that during the entire[t]y of his absence from the District [in 2016 to 2017], [the p]laintiff continued to ... perform his duties as president of that company, Defs.' Reply at 1-2. However, the plaintiff's association with his District-based company does not compel the conclusion that the plaintiff intends to remain in the District after completion of his studies, and the fact that the plaintiff was able to perform his duties as president remotely from California belies defendant TriNet's position that running a District-based company necessarily means that the plaintiff intends to remain in the District. Defendant TriNet also points to the plaintiff's District of Columbia driver's license issued in 2014 and valid until 2021, as support for its position. See Notice of Removal ¶ 7; see also id. , Ex. 2 (copy of the plaintiff's California driver's license). Although a driver's license is one of the indicia of domiciliary status, Core VCT , 59 F.Supp.3d at 126 , and therefore offers some support for defendant TriNet's position, its significance is undercut by the fact that the plaintiff more recently obtained a California driver's license in 2016, see Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 11. And although not explicitly relied on by defendant TriNet, the plaintiff worked at Trustify in the District, which is another indicia of domiciliary status, Core VCT , 59 F.Supp.3d at 126 ; however, defendant TriNet has given the Court no reason to believe that his brief employment with Trustify is persuasive evidence of an intent to have a permanent career ... in [the District] rather than a mere desire to earn money to help fund the expenses of h[is] education, Hakkila , 745 F.Supp. at 991 ; see also id. at 990-91 (finding that an out-of-state student's work-study job ... and her various part-time employments[ ]working as a waitress and in a retail store[ ][we]re not steps toward a permanent career in radio in [her school's state]).  The remaining evidence cited by defendant TriNet and otherwise in the record is even less persuasive. While defendant TriNet relies on the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia arising out of his former employment [ ]here, Notice of Removal ¶ 7, it cites no legal authority, nor is the Court aware of any, for the proposition that filing a lawsuit in a state is evidence of one's intent to remain there. Furthermore, the plaintiff's statement that [w]hen [he] left for California [in May 2016], [he] intended to return to Georgetown, Pl.'s Resp., Ex. 1 (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 9, and the fact that since the filing and removal of this case, the plaintiff has indeed returned to the District to continue his studies, see Defs.' Reply at 2, simply say nothing about whether the plaintiff intends to remain in the District after completing his studies. And finally, the fact that the plaintiff's LinkedIn page has indicated that the plaintiff was located in the District, Notice of Removal ¶ 6, is likewise not probative of the plaintiff's intent to remain in the District after graduation. Furthermore, the import of all of this evidence is undermined because as of the time [the plaintiff] commenced this suit, he had not affirmatively severed his ties to [California]. Murphy v. Newport Waterfront Landing, Inc. , 806 F.Supp. 322 , 324 (D.R.I. 1992) (emphasis added) (fact that student attending law school in Nebraska had stated that he wanted to work either in Massachusetts or Nebraska was not sufficient to establish domicile in Nebraska in light of other ties to his home state of Massachusetts); see also Blackwell v. Elsten , No. 84-cv-1679, 1984 WL 2753 , at  (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 1984) (Even as conclusive a sign of domicile as registering to vote in the new state will not necessarily defeat a student's citizenship in his home state if there are other significant indicia of citizenship in the prior state.). The undisputed facts demonstrate that the plaintiff has maintained significant ties with California, including that in 2011, a year after he enrolled at Georgetown, see Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 2, the plaintiff maintained a California driver's license[ ] ... and voted in [California] state elections, see id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 1. It is also undisputed that following the plaintiff's termination from Trustify, he returned to California for a year, see id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶¶ 8, 10, during which time he obtained a California driver's license, see id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 11; took a position as a retail sales associate at a [local] Best Buy, id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 12; registered to vote as a California resident, id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 13; and filed taxes as a California resident, id. , Ex. A (Nytes Aff.) ¶ 14. His return to California itself undercuts defendant TriNet's proposition that the Court should find that the evidence supports its claim that the plaintiff intended to remain in the District upon completion of his studies, see Hakkila , 745 F.Supp. at 990 (finding that out-of-state college student had not established a domicile in the state where her school was located, in part because she returned to Alaska, the state of her birth, in the summers), and his return is particularly persuasive when coupled with the various actions he took to reestablish his California ties while living there, see Bradley , 721 F.Supp. at 739-40 (finding that the plaintiff was domiciled in his home state and not where he leased an apartment or received mail in part because [h]e ha[d] maintained significant ties with [his home state] as a taxpayer [and] as a licensed driver). Defendant TriNet's evidence is also undermined by what it has failed to show. Notably, it has not provided evidence that the plaintiff registered to vote in the District, voted in the District, registered a vehicle in the District, or paid taxes in the District, all recognized as indicia of domiciliary  status, see Core VCT , 59 F.Supp.3d at 126 , and some which are recognized as particularly probative of domiciliary intent, see Blackwell , 1984 WL 2753 , at  n.1 (finding the fact that the plaintiff maintained his voting registration in the District of Columbia and voted in the District immediately before filing [his] lawsuit and several months thereafter [to be] of particular significance). Courts have found the absence of such indicia to be significant in concluding that a party had failed to rebut the presumption that an out-of-state college student intends to return to his home state. See Murphy , 806 F.Supp. at 324 (finding that a law school student had not established a domicile in Nebraska, the state where his school was located, in part because he never registered his car in Nebraska[ ] [and] never registered to vote in Nebraska); see also Park v. Tsiavos , 679 Fed.Appx. 120 , 125-26 (3d Cir. 2017) (district court did not err in concluding that [a New York college student] failed to overcome the presumption in favor of his existing domicile in his home state of New Jersey where he ha[d] not obtained a driver's license, registered to vote, or paid taxes in New York and he renewed his New Jersey driver's license ... the same month [his] action was filed). In sum, defendant TriNet's evidence of the plaintiff's post-graduate intent to remain in the District ultimately boils down to the plaintiff establishing a business in the District, obtaining employment with defendant Trustify in the District for a brief period of time, and obtaining a District of Columbia driver's license in 2014. For the reasons already explained, and particularly in light of the plaintiff's significant ties to California, the Court concludes that defendant TriNet's evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the plaintiff intends to return to his home state of California upon completion of his studies. Consequently, because defendant TriNet has not shown that the plaintiff has at any time intended to remain in the District indefinitely or for an unspecified period of time, defendant TriNet has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the plaintiff was ever domiciled in the District, see Prakash , 727 F.2d at 1180 , and therefore, it has failed to demonstrate that complete diversity of citizenship exists among the parties in this case.