Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiff attempts to establish domicile in Ohio to satisfy diversity jurisdiction but, even after being given the chance, he fails to do so.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A party must provide more than a naked assertion of the location of his domicile to prove there is diversity for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. A party is not entitled to a hearing before the court issues a motion to dismiss if the party has had the opportunity to present evidence of the location of his domicile but failed to do so.
When a question of the court's jurisdiction is raised the court may inquire by affidavits or otherwise, into the facts as they exist.View Full Point of Law
Plaintiff Tanzymore attempts to sue Defendant Bethlehem Steel Corp. in District Court for personal injuries. Plaintiff claims that diversity jurisdiction is proper because he is a domiciliary of Ohio. However, neither Plaintiff’s deposition testimony nor court filings provided evidence that he is domiciled in Ohio. Rather, the evidence suggested he is domiciled in Pennsylvania.
Must a plaintiff be provided with the opportunity to testify in an evidentiary hearing before the court can dismiss his complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction?
No, the court may determine diversity without conducting a separate hearing. Judgement of the District Court is affirmed.