Vidal v. Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 1 Complaint filed by Claudia Vidal Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 4/24/15. (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CLAUDIA VIDAL,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-15-791
Plaintiff,
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
v.
NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE
COMPANY AND NATIONWIDE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Claudia Vidal. (Doc. 1.)
Because the Complaint fails to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
this action, it will be dismissed unless Plaintiff can show that diversity jurisdiction is proper.
I. Background
Plaintiff commenced this action on April 22, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that this Court has
jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff is alleged
to be an “individual residing at 2255 White Oak Drive, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301.” (Id. at
¶ 1.)
Defendants Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company and Nationwide Insurance
Company are alleged to be “insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania with an
address of One National Gateway, Dept. 5867, Des Moines, IA 50391-5867.” (Id. at ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff “believes and therefore avers that Nationwide is an Ohio company, . . .” (Id. at ¶ 3.)
II. Analysis
Federal courts have an obligation to address issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte. See Shaffer v. GTE North, Inc., 284 F.3d 500, 502 (3d Cir.2002) (citing Club
Comanche, Inc. v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 278 F.3d 250, 255 (3d Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff
alleges that the Court’s basis for jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Section
1332(a)(1) gives district courts original jurisdiction to hear cases where the matter in
controversy exceeds the value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) and is between
citizens of different states. In order for jurisdiction to exist, there must be complete diversity,
meaning that each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff. Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978).
Of course, “[t]he person asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that the case is
properly before the court at all stages of the litigation.” Packard v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 994
F.2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993).
“It is . . . well established that when jurisdiction depends upon diverse citizenship the
absence of sufficient averments or of facts in the record showing such required diversity of
citizenship is fatal and cannot be overlooked by the court, even if the parties fail to call
attention to the defect, or consent that it may be waived.” Thomas v. Bd. of Trs., 195 U.S.
207, 211, 25 S. Ct. 24, 49 L. Ed. 160 (1904). Moreover, “[w]hen the foundation of federal
authority is, in a particular instance, open to question, it is incumbent upon the courts to
resolve such doubts, one way or the other, before proceeding to a disposition of the merits.”
Carlsberg Res. Corp. v. Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 554 F.2d 1254, 1256 (3d Cir. 1977);
see also Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
A.
Citizenship of Plaintiff
The Complaint fails to adequately allege the citizenship of Plaintiff Vidal. For
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the state
2
where she is domiciled. Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 182 (3d Cir. 2008)
(citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569, 35 S. Ct. 164, 59 L. Ed. 360 (1915)). To be
domiciled in a state, a person must reside there and intend to remain indefinitely. Krasnov
v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1300-01 (3d Cir. 1972). A person may have only one domicile, and
thus may be a citizen of only one state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See Williamson v.
Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 34 S. Ct. 442, 58 L. Ed. 758 (1914).
To the extent the Complaint alleges that Vidal is currently “residing” in Pennsylvania,
this is not sufficient. Residence is not the same as domicile and does not establish
citizenship for diversity purposes. See Krasnov, 465 F.2d at 1300 (3d Cir. 1972) (“Where one
lives is prima facie evidence of domicile, but mere residency in a state is insufficient for
purposes of diversity”) (internal citations omitted). To properly plead diversity, Plaintiff must
allege her state of citizenship, not merely her state of residence. As the Complaint does not
contain this fact, the Court cannot determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.
B.
Citizenship of Defendants
Plaintiff also fails to correctly plead the citizenship of Defendants. A corporation may
have more than one state of citizenship: “a corporation shall be 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation may only have one
principal place of business, and proper invocation of diversity jurisdiction requires that the
plaintiff allege where a corporation has “its principal place of business.” See S. Freedman
& Co., Inc. v. Raab, 180 F. App'x 316, 320 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's
dismissal of a complaint alleging where the plaintiff corporation maintained “a principal place
3
of business,” rather than “its principal place of business”). A corporation's principal place of
business is its “nerve center,” that is, the place “where a corporation's officers direct, control,
and coordinate the corporation's activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S. Ct.
1181, 1192, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010).
Here, the Complaint does not identify Defendants’ principal place of business or state
of incorporation. Because the Complaint does not contain these facts, the Court cannot
determine whether there is proper jurisdiction over this action.
III. Conclusion
Because the Court cannot determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, the
matter is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). However,
Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend the Complaint and show that diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff will be granted twenty-one (21) days in which to file
an amended complaint. Failure to do so will result in this action being dismissed.
An appropriate order follows.
April 24, 2015
Date
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
4
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?