Kressen v. National Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 86-0340 (JP).
• Citation: 648 F. Supp. 1165
• Parties: William KRESSEN, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

648 F. Supp. 1165

William KRESSEN, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. No. 86-0340 (JP).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

October 21, 1986.

Peter John Porrata, Old San Juan, P.R., for plaintiff.

Alex González, González & Pérez Hernández, Old San Juan, P.R., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

PIERAS, District Judge.

This is an action for proceeds on a homeowner's insurance policy, in which the plaintiff alleges the insured residence in Bayamón was burglarized on or about October 23, 1985, resulting in over $30,000.00 damages to music, video and computer equipment. Plaintiff claims jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging he is a citizen of New Jersey, and defendant is a citizen of Puerto Rico.

The Court has before it defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and plaintiff's opposition thereto. Each party has submitted evidence in support of his motion. A hearing on this matter was tentatively scheduled for September 3, 1986, pursuant to the Initial Scheduling Conference Order. Plaintiff, by motion filed August 26, 1986, informed the Court that the parties agreed to submit the issue to this Court upon the motions and evidence. Accordingly, the Court vacated the hearing. Based upon the evidence submitted and after due deliberation, the Court now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff William Kressen filed the complaint in this action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on March 12, 1986.

2. Defendant National Insurance Company (NIC) is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

3. On April 9, 1985, plaintiff executed a lease contract with the S.I.P.F. Corporation for a home located at 2151-L, 21st Street, Santa Rosa, Bayamón, Puerto Rico. The term of the lease was for one year, renewable by mutual agreement from year to year. There is no evidence presented that the lease was renewed. The contract required advance monthly rent in the amount of $300.00 for the first six (6) months and $400.00 monthly payment for the following six (6) months, as well as a $600.00 bond upon the signing of the contract. As party to the second part of the lease contract, plaintiff indicated he was a resident of Condado, Puerto Rico. (Defendant's Exhibit 1).

4. On December 23, 1985, plaintiff filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Insurance for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against the defendant herein, complaining that NIC failed to cooperate in a settlement of the insurance claim which is the subject of this action. Plaintiff stated his address was 2067 Rampla Del Almirante, Ocean Park, Puerto Rico. (Defendant's Exhibit 3, translated into English).

5. On November 2, 1984, as an incorporator, plaintiff filed with the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico a Certificate of Incorporation of "Distinctive Auto Ltd., Inc." The nature of the business is listed as an "Auto broker business." Plaintiff is listed among two other individuals as incorporators, with his address at Calle Pino Norte, E-17, Bayamón, Puerto Rico. At the end of the Certificate, the three incorporators each executed a sworn statement to a Notary Public, and plaintiff's stated that he was of "legal age, an auto broker, and resident of Bayamón, Puerto Rico." (Defendant's Exhibit 2).

6. Plaintiff possesses an automobile driver's license issued to him by the Department of Public Works for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (Defendant's Exhibit 4).

7. Plaintiff executed an affidavit on June 11, 1986, swearing that he is a legal resident of the State of New Jersey, residing with his parents at 290 Cloverdale Ct., Saddle Brook, New Jersey; that he receives all of his mail at that address; that he pays monthly in support of that residence; that he owns and pays taxes on other property in New Jersey; that he maintains an office in New Jersey; that he maintains no office or business in Puerto Rico; that he and two business associates make frequent business trips to Puerto Rico and rent an apartment there; that he and his business associates will give up an apartment they share in Puerto Rico; that he had no intention of moving to Puerto Rico, nor relinquishing his residence in New Jersey; that he maintains a classic auto restoration hobby/business in New Jersey; and that he maintains registered automobiles in New Jersey.

8. Plaintiffs father, William Kressen, submitted a statement signed on July 2, 1986, notarized in New Jersey, stating, among other things, that plaintiff has resided with him for the past several years.

9. A Robert Kressen drafted a similar statement signed on July 5, 1986, stating, among other things, that he is and has been plaintiff's business partner for the past year.

10. Between May 23, 1985, and December 4, 1985, Mr. Kressen purchased over $14,000.00 in automotive, computer, studio and other equipment from a broker in Puerto Rico.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The issue is whether William Kressen was domiciled in New Jersey or in Puerto Rico on March 12, 1986, when he filed his complaint. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), state citizenship is the equivalent of domicile. William v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 34 S.Ct. 442, 58 L.Ed. 758 (1914). The determination of a party's citizenship for diversity purposes is a question of mixed law and fact. Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El Comandante, 598 F.2d 698, 702 (1st Cir.1979), and the Court may consider matters outside of the pleadings without holding a hearing. Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 71-72, 59 S.Ct. 725, 728-29, 83 L.Ed. 1111 (1939); O'Toole v. Arlington Trust Co., 681 F.2d 94, 98 (1st Cir.1982); Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El Comandante, supra, 598 F.2d at 699. 13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 2d § 3612 at 540-41 (1984). In this instance the parties requested the Court to determine the issue without a hearing.

When jurisdiction is challenged by the defendant, the burden is on the plaintiff to support subject matter jurisdiction with competent proof. O'Toole v. Arlington Trust Co., supra, 681 F.2d at 98. In this instance, the plaintiff countered defendant's documentary evidence only with his affidavit and sworn statements of his father and a business associate, who ostensibly is a family relation. A party's bare declaration of domicile, which is self-serving in nature, is accorded little weight when in conflict with objective facts. Freeman v. Northwest Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.1985). Nonetheless, all factors must be considered.

While a party may have more than one residence, he has only one domicile. Hawes, supra, 598 F.2d at 701. Domicile, long ago defined by the Supreme Court, is "a residence at a particular place accompanied with positive or presumptive proof of an intention to remain there for an unlimited time." Mitchell v. United States, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 350, 352, 22 L.Ed. 584 (1874); se...