Mantin v. Broadcast Music, 15188.

Citation244 F.2d 204
Decision Date03 May 1957
Docket NumberNo. 15188.,15188.
PartiesLeo MANTIN, Appellant, v. BROADCAST MUSIC, Inc., a corporation, et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Fendler & Lerner, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

Wright, Wright, Green & Wright, Edgar R. Carver, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before MATHEWS, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

On January 19, 1955, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Leo Mantin, hereafter called plaintiff, brought a civil action against 34 defendants — 5 individuals1 and 29 corporations.2 No answer was filed by any of the defendants. Instead, 6 of the corporate defendants3 moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.4 The District Court granted the motion and on May 14, 1956, entered a judgment dismissing the action. Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment.

The judgment was a final decision of the District Court. No direct review thereof could be had in the Supreme Court. The appeal was taken within 30 days after the entry of the judgment. We therefore have jurisdiction of the appeal.5

The question now to be considered is whether the District Court had jurisdiction of the action. Though not raised by the parties, the question is here and must be determined.6

The complaint stated that the District Court had jurisdiction of the action under and by virtue of 28 U.S. C.A. § 1332.7 That, however, was a mere statement of a conclusion — a conclusion which the factual allegations of the complaint did not warrant.

It appeared from the complaint that the matter in controversy exceeded the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, but it did not appear that the matter in controversy was between citizens of different States or between citizens of a State and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof.

The complaint alleged, in substance, that all of the individual defendants were citizens of States other than California; that 18 of the corporate defendants8 were corporations of States other than California; and that all of the other corporate defendants were corporations of States other than California or were corporations of foreign states. Therefore, if the complaint had alleged that plaintiff was a citizen of California, it would have appeared that the District Court had jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.9 However, the complaint did not so allege.

The complaint alleged that plaintiff was "a professional entertainer and composer residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California." That, however, cannot be regarded as an allegation that plaintiff was a citizen of California. Residence and citizenship are not the same thing.10

The complaint did not allege or attempt to allege jurisdiction under any statute other than 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. It did attempt to allege jurisdiction under § 1332, but, as indicated above, its jurisdictional allegations were defective in that they did not include an allegation that plaintiff was a citizen of California.

However, it may well be that, in truth and in fact, plaintiff was at the commencement of this action, and still is, a citizen of California. If so, he may desire to move this court for leave to amend in this court the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1653.11 Therefore, if he so desires, plaintiff may file such a motion with the clerk of this court within 20 days after the filing of this opinion.

Such motion, if filed, shall be verified by plaintiff; shall state positively and specifically whether plaintiff was at the commencement of this action, and still is, a citizen of California; shall set out, in haec verba, any proposed amendment or amendments; and shall, in all respects, conform to the requirements of this court's Rule 15, 28 U.S.C.A.

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Kaneshiro v. North Am. Co. For Life & Health, Civ. No. 79-0480.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • July 11, 1980
    ...232 U.S. 619, 624, 34 S.Ct. 442, 58 L.Ed. 758 (1914), mere residence in a state is not enough to show domicile. Mantin v. Broadcast Music, 244 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1957)." Id. at 225. See also Black's Law Dictionary 1473 (4th ed. 13 Wright notes this problem: There are many . . . situations i......
  • Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 01-35957.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 4, 2002
    ...from the defendants. The complaint inadequately alleged the facts necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction. Mantin v. Broad. Music, Inc., 244 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir.1957) (noting that an allegation of residency cannot be regarded as an allegation of citizenship for the purpose of diver......
  • Dulcich, Inc. v. Mayer Brown, LLP
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • June 18, 2013
    ...citizenship are not the same thing.’ ” Seven Resorts, Inc. v. Cantlen, 57 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir.1995), citing Mantin v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 244 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir.1957). Dulcich's citizenship is not alleged in the pleadings. Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 2. This court assumes for pres......
  • Aurora Loan Servs. LLC v. Palacios, Case No. CV 11-08723 MMM (FFMx)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • February 8, 2012
    ...letter law that, for purposes of diversity, '[r]esidence and citizenship are not the same thing,'" quoting Mantin v. Broadcast Music, Inc. , 244 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir.1957)). Because Palacios has failed to allege the citizenship of Aurora's members, and has failed to allege her own citizen......
  • 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