Pacific Specialty Insurance Company v. Poirier et al
Filing
13
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 06/27/2018. ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2018, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (sphil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00880-PAB
PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAVANNA POIRIER and
JASON MENDOZA,
Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court takes up this matter sua sponte on plaintiff’s complaint [Docket No. 1].
Plaintiff alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 4.
In every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal court must satisfy
itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if doing so requires sua sponte action. See
Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & County of Denver , 628
F.2d 1289, 1297 (10th Cir. 1980). Absent an assurance that jurisdiction ex ists, a court
may not proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427
F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of
jurisdiction on their own, regardless of parties’ apparent acquiescence. First, it is the
Court’s duty to do so. Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir.
1988). Second, regarding subject matter jurisdiction, “the consent of the parties is
irrelevant, principles of estoppel do not apply, and a party does not waive the
requirement by failing to challenge jurisdiction.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (internal citations omitted). Finally,
delay in addressing the issue only compounds the problem if, despite much time and
expense having been dedicated to the case, a lack of jurisdiction causes it to be
dismissed. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr. Co., No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW,
2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28, 2009); see, e.g., GBForefront, L.P. v.
Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 33 (3d Cir. 2018) (finding, after “years of
litigation” and entry of judgment, that the record was insufficient to establish federal
jurisdiction).
“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such
jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220,
1224 (10th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. Pursuant to that section, “district courts shall hav e original jurisdiction of
all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). The facts presently alleged are insufficient to establish defendants’
citizenship.
Plaintiff states that defendants are “Colorado resident[s].” Docket No. 1 at 1,
¶¶ 2-3. However, domicile, not residency or mailing address, is determinative of
citizenship. Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514 (10th Cir. 1972) (“[A]llegations
of mere ‘residence’ may not be equated with ‘citizenship’ for the purposes of
establishing diversity.”); see also Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490
2
U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (“‘Domicile’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘residence,’ and one
can reside in one place but be domiciled in another.” (citations omitted)). The residency
of defendants is therefore not relevant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Because plaintiff’s allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court to
determine the citizenship of defendants or whether the Court has jurisdiction, see
United States ex rel. General Rock & Sand Corp. v. Chuska Dev. Corp. , 55 F.3d 1491,
1495 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor must
allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction.”) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted), it is
ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2018, plaintiff shall show
cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Court’s lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
DATED June 27, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?