Leeper et al v. Connecticut Valley Arms Inc et al

Filing 25

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER: In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that this Court has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. T he undersigned reviewed the pleadings and determined that an amount in controversy exceeding the jurisdictional threshold is facially apparent. With regard to the diversity of citizenship, however, the plaintiffs allegations are insufficient. IT IS O RDERED that, not later than twenty-one days after the date of this order, the plaintiffs shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a finding that the parties are diverse in citizenship. These facts should be supported with summary-judgment-type evidence. The defendants will then be allowed seven days to respond to the removing defendants submission. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 10/27/2012. (crt,Putch, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
TERRY MICHAEL LEEPER AND
BONNIE T. LEEPER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-00089

VERSUS

JUDGE HAIK

CONNECTICUT VALLEY ARMS, INC., MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA
D.C. 1980, INC. AND BLACKPOWDER
PRODUCTS, INC., DIKAR S. COOP, LTDA,
BROWNING INTERNATIONAL S.A., AND
THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, INC.

SUA SPONTE JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ORDER

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that this Court has jurisdiction, under
28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are diverse in citizenship and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00. The undersigned reviewed the pleadings and
determined that an amount in controversy exceeding the jurisdictional threshold is
facially apparent. The plaintiffs allege that Mr. Leeper was injured when a gun
misfired, and they claim that he sustained facial injuries and that he is now legally
blind in one eye. This is sufficient to satisfy the requirement regarding the amount
in controversy.
With regard to the diversity of citizenship, however, the plaintiffs’ allegations
are insufficient. When jurisdiction is based on diversity, the citizenship of the parties

must be distinctly and affirmatively alleged.1 The plaintiffs allege that they are
residents of Louisiana. This is insufficient to establish their citizenship, since the
citizenship of a natural person is determined by the state in which the person is
domiciled, and domicile is a combination of both a person's residence and his intent
to remain there permanently.2 Therefore, “an allegation that a party is a resident of
a certain state is not a sufficient allegation of his citizenship in that state.”3 Evidence
of a person's place of residence, however, is prima facie proof of his domicile.4 For
that reason, the undersigned will accept that the plaintiffs are Louisiana citizens if
there is no objection from the defendants.
Six defendants were named in the complaint, two of which have been
dismissed. That fact that two defendants have been dismissed is immaterial, since
“[t]he district court is required to determine whether there is complete diversity only
at the time the plaintiffs bring a suit or when the defendants remove a case to federal
court.”5 Therefore, the citizenship of the dismissed defendants must be considered.

1

Mullins v. Testamerica Inc., 300 Fed. App’x 259, 259 (5th Cir. 2008).

2

Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2011).

3

Delome v. Union Barge Line Co., 444 F.2d 225, 233 (5th Cir. 1971).

4

Hollinger, 654 F.3d at 571.

5

Campbell v. Stone Ins., Inc., 509 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2007).
-2-

Furthermore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is deemed to be a
citizen of any state in which it is incorporated and any state where it has its principal
place of business. Therefore, a party invoking diversity jurisdiction must allege both
the state of incorporation and the principal place of business of each corporate party.6
In their complaint, however, the plaintiffs alleged the principal place of business of
each defendant but did not allege the states of incorporation.
Also, one of the defendants is alleged to have its principal place of business in
Spain, but the plaintiffs do not allege that it is a Spanish corporation. A corporation
incorporated in a foreign nation is a citizen of that nation for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction.7
Because the plaintiffs have not alleged the states and/or countries in which the
defendant corporations were organized, the undersigned cannot determine whether
the parties are diverse in citizenship.

6

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 637 (5th Cir. 1983).

7

Torres v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 113 F.3d 540, 544 n. 12 (5th Cir. 1997), citing
National S.S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118, 1 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed. 87 (1882), and Panalpina
Welttransport GmBh v. Geosource, Inc., 764 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1985).

-3-

The party invoking subject matter jurisdiction in federal court has the burden
of establishing the court’s jurisdiction.8 In this case, the plaintiffs must bear that
burden. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, not later than twenty-one days after the date of this
order, the plaintiffs shall file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support
a finding that the parties are diverse in citizenship. These facts should be supported
with summary-judgment-type evidence. The defendants will then be allowed seven
days to respond to the removing defendants’ submission.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana, this 27th day of October 2012.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253-54 (5th Cir. 1998).

-4-