Hearts With Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick

• Decision Date: 20 June 2016
• Docket Number: 2:13-cv-00039-JAW
• Citation: Hearts With Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick, 192 F. Supp. 3d 181 (D. Me. 2016)
• Parties: HEARTS WITH HAITI, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Paul KENDRICK, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

192 F.Supp.3d 181

HEARTS WITH HAITI, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Paul KENDRICK, Defendant.

2:13-cv-00039-JAW

United States District Court, D. Maine.

Signed June 20, 2016

David A. Goldman, Peter J. DeTroy, III, Russell Pierce, Devin W. Deane, Kelly M. Hoffman, Robert P. Cummins, Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, Portland, ME, Robert F. Oberkoetter, Law Office of Robert F. Oberkoetter, Russells Mills, MA, for Plaintiffs.

Brent A. Singer, David C. King, F. David Walker, IV, Matthew M. Cobb, Rudman & Winchell, Bangor, ME, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On July 23, 2015, after thirteen days of emotional and contentious testimony, a federal jury issued a stunning victory in this defamation case in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant in the total amount of $14,500,000.In an extraordinary turn of events, while this case was on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the Defendant fell upon a plausible argument that this Court never had proper jurisdiction in the first place.The argument is based on an arcane exception to diversity jurisdiction that deems American citizens domiciled abroad "stateless" and renders them unable to access the federal courts on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.Here, the narrow issue is whether Mr. Geilenfeld was domiciled in Iowa or Haiti at the time he filed suit on February 6, 2013.

To say that the Defendant raised this issue late is an understatement, but unlike virtually any other legal issue, a court's jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, even after verdict and on appeal, because jurisdiction goes to whether the court can legally hear the case.After the issue was presented to the First Circuit, the appellate court remanded the case to this Court to make factual findings and resolve the question of Mr. Geilenfeld's domicile.On remand, the Court admitted exhibits, received testimony from Mr. Geilenfeld and others, and reviewed memoranda submitted by the parties.

After analyzing the evidence and applying the law, the Court has concluded that Mr. Geilenfeld was domiciled in Haiti, not Iowa, as of February 6, 2013 and that the Court did not and does not have jurisdiction over the case.The consequence of this decision is that the hard-fought verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs must be rendered a nullity and the case must be dismissed.

Although the Court is issuing its ruling in strict accordance with the facts as it has found them and the law as it understands it, the Court profoundly regrets that this issue was not raised earlier.In a court whose purpose it is to resolve sometimes contentious disputes, this case stands apart.Even though there were many side issues, the case turned on whether Mr. Geilenfeld had sexually abused young boys under his care at the St. Joseph Family of Haiti, an orphanage he founded in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.Utterly convinced that Mr. Geilenfeld had done wrong, Mr. Kendrick repeatedly proclaimed Mr. Geilenfeld's guilt to all who could listen or read, including Hearts With Haiti (HWH) and other financial backers of the St. Joseph Family.Equally determined to clear his name, Mr. Geilenfeld steadfastly denied Mr. Kendrick's accusations.The discovery period was unusually rancorous, resulting in this Court's imposition of sanctions, a rare event in the District of Maine.The trial was long, arduous, and consisted of difficult—occasionally searing—testimony from supporters and detractors of Mr. Geilenfeld, including a number of men who testified that Mr. Kendrick's allegations were true.Championed by one of the state of Maine's finest trial attorneys, the result of the trial was an unconditional victory for Mr. Geilenfeld and HWH, a United States nonprofit corporation whose main purpose has been to support St. Joseph.¹This Court upheld the verdict from post-trial attack and assumed that the First Circuit would resolve the merits of the Defendant's appeal in the ordinary course.The remand came from out of the blue.

The Court is keenly aware that this case has taken an extraordinary toll on its participants: untold hours of attorney time and expense; the acute stress of the contentious discovery period and emotional trial; the impact on the parties and witnesses of an intense, prolonged proceeding; the hard work of the jury in listening to the evidence, applying the Court's instructions, and arriving at a verdict; and the resounding victory for the Plaintiffs.The Court assures the parties, particularly the Plaintiffs, that it does not lightly take the fruits of such a laborious victory from them.But it is this Court's duty to neutrally find the facts and apply the law, and the Court has concluded that it does not have and never had jurisdiction over the dispute and therefore the Plaintiffs' hard-earned victory is fated to be short-lived.

In this opinion, the Court endeavors to explain why it has reached this conclusion.The Court understands that its explanation is small solace to the disappointed litigants.²

I.BRIEF OVERVIEW

An American citizen domiciled abroad is considered "stateless" and does not satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.During the pendency of Mr. Kendrick's appeal to the First Circuit, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to reflect their position that Mr. Geilenfeld remained a citizen of his home state of Iowa when they filed suit.Mr. Kendrick then moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Mr. Geilenfeld was domiciled in Haiti at that time.The First Circuit remanded the jurisdictional issue for resolution by this Court.On remand, the Court held a jurisdictional hearing, and the parties submitted briefs on the issue after the hearing.

Domicile requires both physical presence in a place and intent to remain there.A review of the voluminous record establishes that Mr. Geilenfeld left Iowa decades ago, that he traveled extensively for a time, and that he moved to Haiti in the 1980s.From then until the filing of this suit on February 6, 2013, he lived and worked for an organization he founded in Port au Prince.While he maintained some ties to Iowa, his life was firmly rooted in Haiti.As such, the Court concludes that Mr. Geilenfeld was beyond its jurisdiction as a stateless American citizen domiciled abroad.It further concludes that considerations of finality cannot trump the jurisdictional defect, and that Mr. Geilenfeld's status as an indispensable, nondiverse party to this case requires the other plaintiff, HWH, to lose its verdict as well.The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint and grants Mr. Kendrick's motion to dismiss.

II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A.Initiation of the Suit

On February 6, 2013, Michael Geilenfeld and HWH filed suit in this Court against Paul Kendrick.Compl.(ECF No. 1)(Compl. ).The Plaintiffs invoked jurisdiction "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of citizenship and because the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)."Id.¶ 4.Regarding the parties' citizenship, the Plaintiffs alleged that HWH "is a North Carolina nonprofit corporation located in City of Raleigh, County of Wake, State of North Carolina, USA"; that Mr. Geilenfeld "is an individual residing in Pétion-Ville Commune, Port-au-Prince Arrondissement, Republic of Haiti and is the founder and Executive Director of St. Joseph Family of Haiti"; and that Mr. Kendrick "is an individual residing in the Town of Freeport, County of Cumberland, State of Maine, USA."Id.¶¶ 1-3.On March 8, 2013, Mr. Kendrick filed an Answer, denying "that the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars" and admitting "the remaining allegations" as regards diversity jurisdiction.Defenses and Answer¶¶ 4-6 (ECF No. 8).

B.Trial

Although the Court originally scheduled the trial to begin on October 7, 2014, Trial List(ECF No. 231), Mr. Geilenfeld's arrest by Haitian authorities necessitated a continuance of the trial date.Oral Mot. to Continue(ECF No. 260); Oral Order Granting Mot. to Continue Trial for 90 Days(ECF No. 261).Eventually, the Court learned of Mr. Geilenfeld's release by Haitian authorities, Min. Entry(ECF No. 315), and on July 6, 2015, the jury trial commenced.Tr. of Proceedings I(ECF No. 484).On July 23, 2015, the jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiffs: the jury awarded $2,500,000 on the defamation claim and $5,000,000 on the intentional interference claim to HWH, and it awarded $7,000,000 on the defamation, false light, and intentional interference claims to Mr. Geilenfeld.Jury Verdict Form as to Michael Geilenfeld(ECF No. 474)(Geilenfeld Jury Verdict Form ); Jury Verdict Form as to Hearts with Haiti(ECF No. 475)(HWH Jury Verdict Form ); J.(ECF No. 480).

C.Appeal

After the Court denied Mr. Kendrick's motion for new trial on October 30, 2015, Order on Def.'s Rule 59 Mot. for a New Trial or Alternative Post-J.Relief and Pls.'Rule 59(e)Mot. to Alter or Amend J. to Include Pre– and Post-J.Interest, to Include the April 22, 2015 Sanction, and to Reflect Dismissal without Prejudice of Pls.'Punitive Damages Claims(ECF No. 498), Mr. Kendrick filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit on November 18, 2015.Def.'s Notice of Appeal(ECF No. 502).

On January 8, 2016, while the case was on appeal, the Plaintiffs moved to amend the pleadings to allege facts establishing diversity of citizenship.Hearts With Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick , No. 15-2401, Pls.-Appellees' Mot. to Amend Pleadings to Show Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1653(Doc. No. 00116942323)(Pls.'Mot. ).³On January 12, 2016, Mr. Kendrick objected to the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the pleadings and moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Hearts With Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick , No. 15-2401, Def.-Appellant's Obj./Resp. to "Pls.-Appellees' Mot. to Amend Pleadings to...