United States District Court, D. Colorado
ILON T. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Ilon Thys, a/k/a Ilon Thys Williams, an individual, Plaintiff,
STEWART TITLE COMPANY, a Texas corporation, d/b/a Stewart Title of Colorado, a/k/a Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc., a/k/a Stewart Title-Longmont, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. BRIMMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The Court takes up this matter sua sponte on the
complaint [Docket No. 1] filed by plaintiff Ilon T. Williams.
Plaintiff states that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Docket No. 1 at 1-2, ¶ 3.
every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal
court must satisfy itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if
doing so requires sua sponte action. Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City &
County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1297 (10th Cir. 1980).
Absent an assurance that jurisdiction exists, a court may not
proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great
Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005).
Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of jurisdiction on
their own, regardless of parties' apparent acquiescence.
First, it is the Court's duty to do so. Tuck v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th
Cir. 1988). Second, regarding subject matter jurisdiction,
“the consent of the parties is irrelevant, principles
of estoppel do not apply, and a party does not waive the
requirement by failing to challenge jurisdiction.”
Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de
Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (internal citations
omitted). Finally, delay in addressing the issue only
compounds the problem if it turns out that, despite much time
and expense having been dedicated to a case, a lack of
jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed or remanded regardless
of the stage it has reached. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Pinkard Constr. Co., No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL
2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28, 2009).
well established that “[t]he party invoking federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such
jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v.
Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.
2004). Plaintiff invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as the
basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Docket No.
1 at 1-2, ¶ 3. Section 1332(a)(1) states: “The
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between  citizens of different States.” The facts as
presently averred, however, do not provide sufficient
information regarding the citizenship of plaintiff and
complaint states that plaintiff is a “resident of the
State of Colorado with an address of 6755 Harvest Road,
Boulder, Colorado.” Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 1.
However, domicile, not residency, is determinative of
citizenship. Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507,
514 (10th Cir. 1972) (“[A]llegations of mere
‘residence' may not be equated with
‘citizenship' for the purposes of establishing
diversity.”); see also Mississippi Band of Choctaw
Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989)
(“‘Domicile' is not necessarily synonymous
with ‘residence, ' and one can reside in one place
but be domiciled in another.” (citations omitted)).
plaintiff's allegations regarding defendant Stewart Title
Company's citizenship are deficient because plaintiff
alleges only defendant's state of incorporation. Docket
No. 1 at 1, ¶ 2. For diversity purposes, “a
corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State
and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of
the State or foreign state where it has its principal place
of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990). A
corporation's “principal place of business”
is “the place where a corporation's officers
direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's
activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S.
77, 92-93 (2010). A corporation's principal place of
business is not necessarily the same as its corporate address
or even its headquarters. Id. at 93.
defendant has not sufficiently alleged the citizenship of the
parties, the Court is unable to determine whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim.
See United States ex rel. General Rock & Sand Corp.
v. Chuska Dev. Corp., 55 F.3d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir.
1995) (“The party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction
in his favor must allege in his pleading the facts essential
to show jurisdiction.”) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). Therefore, it is
that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 26,
2018, defendant Ilon T. Williams shall show cause
why this case should not be dismissed due to the ...