United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. BRIMMER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court takes up this matter sua sponte on defendant
Twin City Fire Insurance Company's Notice of Removal
[Docket No. 1]. Twin City asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1
at 2, ¶ 6.
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. See
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, despite much time
and expense having been dedicated to the case, a lack of
jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed. See U.S. Fire
Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr. Co., No.
09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July
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). Twin City asserts that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Pursuant
to that section, “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The facts
presently alleged are insufficient to establish the
City alleges that the three corporate defendants - Twin City,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Company
- are organized under the laws of Indiana, Massachusetts, and
Maryland, respectively. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 8. However,
the citizenship of a corporation is based on both its state
of incorporation and its principal place of business.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Because Twin City
has not alleged the location of the corporate defendants'
principal places of business, the Court is unable to
determine the citizenship of those defendants.
City's allegations regarding defendant Gashota are also
deficient. Twin City states that Mr. Gashota is a resident of
Michigan. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 8. But domicile, not
residency or mailing address, is determinative of citizenship
for purposes of establishing diversity. 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
foregoing reasons, the allegations are presently insufficient
to allow the Court to determine the citizenship of defendants
and whether the Court has jurisdiction. 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.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Wherefore, it is ORDERED that, on or before
5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 3, 2019,
defendants shall show cause why this case should not be
remanded to state court due to the Court's lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Although only Twin City Fire Insurance
Company (hereinafter “Twin City”) filed the
Notice of Removal, Twin City states that all of the
defendants who have been served have stipulated to removal.
Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 5.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that
Twin City's principal place of business is in Englewood,
Colorado. Docket No. 3 at 1-2, ¶ 2. If that is true,
complete diversity is lacking and removal was improper.
See Id. at 1, ¶ 1 (alleging ...