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
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's Notice of Removal
[Docket No. 1]. Defendant asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1
at 3, ¶ 14.
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). Defendant 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). “For
purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, an
individual's state citizenship is equivalent to
domicile.” Smith v. Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254,
1259 (10th Cir. 2006). “To establish domicile in a
particular state, a person must be physically present in the
state and intend to remain there.” Id. at
1260. The facts presently alleged are insufficient to
establish plaintiff's citizenship.
Notice of Removal alleges that plaintiff “is a resident
and citizen of the State of Colorado who resides at 17403 E.
16th Drive, Lot 2-11, Aurora, Colorado 80011.” Docket
No. 1 at 3, ¶ 15. However, the evidence upon which
defendant relies to establish plaintiff's citizenship -
namely, plaintiff's state court complaint, see
Docket No. 3 - does not support defendant's allegation.
In his complaint, plaintiff does not allege that he is a
citizen of Colorado. Instead, the complaint states that
plaintiff is “an individual and resident of the State
of Colorado, ” Docket No. 3 at 1, ¶ 1, and
provides that plaintiff has a Colorado address. Id.
at 8. Residency is not synonymous with domicile, see
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)), and only the latter is determinative of
a party's citizenship. See 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
the allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court
to determine the citizenship of plaintiff 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)), it is
that, on or before August 26, 2019,
defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company shall show cause
why this case should not be remanded to state court due to