Milton Jones, Jr. v. CertusBank NA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cv-01633-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999598543].. [14-2281]

Appeal: 14-2281

Doc: 30

Filed: 06/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2281

MILTON JONES, JR.; WALTER DAVIS; ANGELA WEBB,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
CERTUSBANK NA; BENJAMIN
OPPORTUNITIES LP,

WEINGER;

3-SIGMA

VALUE

FINANCIAL

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:14-cv-01633-TMC)

Submitted:

April 30, 2015

Decided:

June 9, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles E. McDonald, III, Lemuel G. Geddie, Jr., OGLETREE
DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina;
William W. Wilkins, Burl F. Williams, Andrew A. Mathias, NEXSEN
PRUET, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. Richard
A. Harpootlian, RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina; Wilmer Parker, MALOY JENKINS PARKER, Atlanta, Georgia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2281

Doc: 30

Filed: 06/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Milton E. Jones, Jr., Walter Davis, and Angela Webb filed a
complaint against CertusBank NA, Benjamin Weinger, and 3-Sigma
Value

Financial

Opportunities,

L.P.,

alleging

state-law

civil

conspiracy and tort claims arising out of the termination of
their employment.

Defendants appeal the district court’s order

dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of diversity
jurisdiction.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Diversity

jurisdiction

exists

when

there

is

complete

diversity among the parties and the amount in controversy is
greater
U.S.C.

than
§

$75,000,

1332(a)

citizenship

of

citizenship

of

exclusive

(2012).

each
each

of

interest

Complete

plaintiff

[to]

defendant,”

and

diversity
be

Hoschar

costs.

28

requires

“the

different
v.

from

Appalachian

the
Power

Co., 739 F.3d 163, 170 (4th Cir. 2014), and “is assessed at the
time

the

action

is

filed.”

Freeport-McMoRan,

Inc.

v.

K

N

Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).
Citizenship for purposes of § 1332 depends on domicile.
Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Carroll Carolina Oil Co., 145 F.3d 660,
663

(4th

Cir.

1998).

“Domicile

requires

physical

presence,

coupled with an intent to make the State a home.”

Johnson v.

Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932, 937 n.2 (4th Cir. 2008).

“We review

the

district

court’s

factual

findings

with

respect

to

jurisdiction for clear error and the legal conclusion that flows
2

Appeal: 14-2281

Doc: 30

Filed: 06/09/2015

therefrom de novo.”

Pg: 3 of 3

Velasco v. Gov’t of Indonesia, 370 F.3d

392, 398 (4th Cir. 2004).
Upon review, we conclude that the district court’s factual
findings regarding Davis’ domicile are not clearly erroneous.
As

the

court

recognized,

some

facts

weighed

in

favor

of

a

finding that Davis was domiciled in North Carolina, including
that

Davis’

Carolina.

vehicles
However,

circumstances,

the

were

registered

considering
court

and

the

permissibly

taxed

totality
found

that

in

North

of

the

Davis

was

domiciled in South Carolina at the time Plaintiffs filed suit.
Thus, because CertusBank also was domiciled in South Carolina,
the court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of diversity
jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

conclusions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district

because

presented

in

court’s

the
the

facts

order.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3