Hoffman v. Lenyo, 18563.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1970
• Docket Number: No. 18563.,18563.
• Citation: 433 F.2d 657
• Parties: George H. HOFFMAN, Administrator of the Estate of Antoinette D. Drolles, Deceased, Appellant, v. George E. LENYO, M.D.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

433 F.2d 657 (1970)

George H. HOFFMAN, Administrator of the Estate of Antoinette D. Drolles, Deceased, Appellant, v. George E. LENYO, M.D.

No. 18563.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued September 21, 1970.

Decided November 5, 1970.

David Kanner, Kanner, Stein, Feinberg & Barol, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Francis E. Shields, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Dolores B. Spina, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and FREEDMAN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FREEDMAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff, administrator of the estate of the decedent, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his action because diversity was manufactured and hence would not support the suit under our decision in McSparran v. Weist, 402 F.2d 867 (3 Cir. 1968), cert. denied sub nom. Fritzinger v. Weist, 395 U.S. 903, 89 S.Ct. 1739, 23 L.Ed.2d 217 (1969).

I.

Plaintiff attacks the finding of the district court that "the sole purpose in selecting plaintiff as an administrator was to create diversity of citizenship."

As we pointed out in McSparran¹ and in subsequent cases,² a plaintiff who invokes diversity jurisdiction has the burden of proving all the facts required to sustain it.

The record shows that the administrator is a citizen of New Jersey and a grand-uncle of the decedent. Plaintiff places strong reliance on this family relationship. However, decedent was survived by her parents who are citizens of Pennsylvania and who normally would be available as plaintiffs. She also was survived by three aunts who are citizens of Pennsylvania and more closely related to her than is plaintiff. Moreover, although plaintiff seeks to justify his entrance into the case on the ground that the parents were emotionally distraught by the death of their daughter, the record shows that his appointment as administrator was made at the request of the attorney for the decedent's parents and was not accomplished until almost 10 months after decedent's death.

Plaintiff has done nothing as administrator except file this action and is wholly inexperienced in such matters as the administration of an estate. He acknowledged that he knew nothing of the state court action then pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, for the same cause of action although it was brought in his name less than a week after his appointment as administrator.

The finding by the district court that plaintiff was selected as administrator for the sole purpose of creating diversity of citizenship is a finding of fact³ which may not be set aside on appeal unless it is shown to be clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Far from being clearly erroneous, the finding is amply supported by the record.

II.

Decedent's death occurred and the cause of action arose prior to our decision in McSparran.⁴ We made it clear in McSparran⁵ and our later cases⁶ that in the gradually shrinking class of cases where the cause of action arose prior to our decision in McSparran the new rule, which overruled Corabi v. Auto Racing, Inc., 264 F.2d 784 (3 Cir. 1959), was to be applied retrospectively "only where the district court finds that in the circumstances of the particular case there is ample time and opportunity for the plaintiff to institute a new action in the state court. * * *"

The district judge dismissed this action for want of jurisdiction in express reliance on the fact that there was then pending an appropriate state court action which had been instituted within the period of the statute of limitations. Defendant, however, has attacked the state suit as barred by the statute of limitations, because the summons issued within the period of the statute of limitations was not served but was reissued after the statute had run, and the complaint was not filed until even later.⁷ This attack would impose on plaintiff the very hardship we were careful to guard against in McSparran and apparently was not brought to the attention of the district court. A defendant may not obtain the dismissal of a timely federal action on the ground that diversity was manufactured if he is also seeking to prevent relief in the state court by claiming the bar of the statute of limitations.

The order of the district court...