Linardos v. Fortuna

Decision Date07 October 1998
Docket NumberNo. 98-7077,98-7077
Citation157 F.3d 945
PartiesGeorge LINARDOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund FORTUNA, Joan Fortuna and Susan Joan Linardos, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Rosemarie Paine, New Haven, Connecticut (John R. Williams, New Haven, Connecticut, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dion W. Moore, Bridgeport, Connecticut (Williams, Cooney & Sheehy, Bridgeport, Connecticut, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FEINBERG and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge *.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff George Linardos appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Dominic J. Squatrito, Judge, dismissing his complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction on the ground that there was no evidence that, when the action was commenced, Linardos was not a domiciliary of Connecticut, the State of which the defendants were citizens. On appeal, Linardos contends, inter alia, that defendants' motion to dismiss, which presented no evidence as to Linardos's citizenship as of the time the complaint was filed, was insufficient to raise the question of diversity; and that the district court erred in not accepting at face value the complaint's allegation that Linardos was a citizen of Florida when the complaint was filed and in placing the burden on him to prove his citizenship at that time. Although Linardos's arguments are based on an erroneous view of a plaintiff's burden of proof with respect to subject matter jurisdiction, we vacate and remand for further proceedings to determine such jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

The present action was commenced by Linardos on July 31, 1997, alleging that he had been assaulted by two of the defendants and that all three defendants proceeded to lodge false charges against him, which were ultimately dismissed. The complaint alleged that Linardos "is a citizen of the State of Florida" and that all of the defendants "are citizens of the State of Connecticut." (Complaint pp 2, 3.)

Some 2 1/2 months later, defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating as follows:

1. The plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Connecticut.

2. All defendants are citizens of the State of Connecticut.

3. Based on the foregoing, there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.

(Defendants' Motion To Dismiss dated October 15, 1997.)

Linardos opposed the motion, arguing that diversity of citizenship is to be determined as of the time of the filing of the complaint, and pointing out that defendants' motion addressed his citizenship only at the time of the motion, not at the time the complaint was filed. Linardos also argued that he had no obligation to present facts showing his citizenship at the time of filing of the complaint, that he was entitled to rely on the jurisdictional allegation made in his complaint, and that the court was required to accept that In a Ruling on Motion To Dismiss, dated December 19, 1997 ("Opinion"), the district court accepted Linardos's argument that diversity of citizenship is to be determined as of the time of the filing of the complaint. However, it rejected his other contentions, and because Linardos failed to make any factual presentation, the court proceeded to draw inferences against him. The court assumed that at the time the complaint was filed Linardos was at least a resident of Florida, see, e.g., Opinion at 4 ("the plaintiff moved from Florida ... shortly after the complaint was filed"); but it inferred that he moved to Connecticut not more than 75 days later. Based on that inference and on Linardos's failure to produce any evidence, the court "f[ound] inescapable the inference that at the time the complaint was filed the plaintiff did not have the intent to remain in Florida indefinitely." Id. The court therefore concluded that Linardos was not "domicile[d]" in Florida when the complaint was filed and was instead a citizen of Connecticut. Id.

allegation as true unless defendants presented evidence to the contrary. He made no factual presentation in opposition to the motion.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss. Judgment was entered accordingly, and this appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Linardos contends principally that defendants' motion to dismiss, focusing as it did on his citizenship as of the time of the motion rather than as of the time the complaint was filed, was insufficient to place the question of diversity in issue, and that the district court erred in looking beyond the allegations of the complaint, in not accepting those allegations as true, and in not drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor. Although we reject most of Linardos's arguments as to his responsibility to prove his citizenship as of the time the complaint was filed, we have two concerns with the district court's ruling, and we therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings.

It is hornbook law that the question of "[w]hether federal diversity jurisdiction exists is determined by examining the citizenship of the parties at the time the action is commenced.... If diversity exists at the time of commencement, federal jurisdiction is not defeated if one party subsequently becomes a citizen of the same state as his opponent." 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3608, at 448-49 (2d ed.1984); see 15 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 102.32, at 102-61-62 (3d ed.1998); see also Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428, 111 S.Ct. 858, 112 L.Ed.2d 951 (1991) ("if jurisdiction exists at the time an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events"); Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 883, 139 L.Ed.2d 871 (1998).

It is also hornbook law that the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving facts to establish that jurisdiction. See 13 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3522, at 62-65 (2d ed.1984); 15 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 102.14, at 102-24 (3d ed. 1998) ("The burden of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting jurisdiction."); see also Scelsa v. City University of New York, 76 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir.1996). That party must allege a proper basis for jurisdiction in his pleadings and must support those allegations with "competent proof" if a party opposing jurisdiction properly challenges those allegations, see, e.g., McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936), or if the court sua sponte raises the question, see, e.g., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
307 cases
  • In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Aust. 11/11/2000
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 21 Abril 2003
    ...abode to which a person intends to return. See Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir.2000) (citing Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir.1998)); see also Juvelis ex rel. Juvelis v. Snider, 68 F.3d 648, 651 n. 3 (3d Cir.1995) ("`[T]he domicile of a person is the ......
  • Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v. Reyad
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 10 Agosto 2001
    ... ... and must support those allegations with `competent proof' if a party opposing jurisdiction properly challenges those allegations." Linardos v. Fortuna, ... Page 241 ... 157 F.3d 945, 947 (2d Cir.1998). "As a general rule, if a Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges subject matter ... ...
  • Powell v. Delta Airlines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 6 Noviembre 2015
    ...Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese–Costa, P.C. v. Dupont, 371 Fed.Appx. 135, 137 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir.1998) ). “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it ......
  • Del. Trust Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 23 Julio 2015
    ...has jurisdiction. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) ; Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 947 (2d Cir.1998). “[O]ut of respect for the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the rights of states, [courts] must ‘resolv[e] any......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • 18 Agosto 2014
    ...generally is determined by domicile, i.e., a party’s actual location in a state plus the intent to remain there. [ Linardos v. Fortuna , 157 F3d 945, 948 (2d Cir 1998).] Factors that may be considered in determining a party’s domicile include where the party exercises civil and political ri......
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Civil Practice Before Trial
    • 2 Mayo 2018
    ...generally is determined by domicile, i.e., a party’s actual location in a state plus the intent to remain there. [ Linardos v. Fortuna , 157 F3d 945, 948 (2d Cir 1998).] Factors that may be considered in determining a party’s domicile include where the party exercises civil and political ri......
  • Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • 18 Agosto 2016
    ...generally is determined by domicile, i.e., a party’s actual location in a state plus the intent to remain there. [ Linardos v. Fortuna , 157 F3d 945, 948 (2d Cir 1998).] Factors that may be considered in determining a party’s domicile include where the party exercises civil and political ri......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • 18 Agosto 2014
    ...AD2d 641, 591 NYS2d 853 (2d Dept 1992), §37:670 Lilly v. Ayoub , 260 AD2d 302, 689 NYS2d 57 (1st Dept 1999), §8:94 Linardos v. Fortuna , 157 F3d 945 (2d Cir 1998), §8:394 Linda F. Fargnoli v. Faber , 105 AD2d 523, 481 NYS2d 784 (3d Dept 1984), §17:54 New York Civil PraCtiCe BeFore trial C-6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT