From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rios v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Aug 30, 2019
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02030-PAB (D. Colo. Aug. 30, 2019)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 19-cv-02030-PAB

08-30-2019

MARINA RIOS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court takes up this matter sua sponte on defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's Notice of Removal of Action [Docket No. 1]. Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 5.

In 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 28, 2009).

"The 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.

The Notice of Removal of Action alleges that plaintiff "is and was a resident of Colorado residing at 5033 County Road 335, Lot 268, New Castle, Colorado." Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 6. It also states that "this is the same address on the State of Colorado Traffic Accident Report prepared by the Denver Police Department for the subject accident." Id.; see also Docket No. 5 at 2, ¶ 5 (stating that the subject accident occurred in June 2016). However, 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 establishing diversity."). The fact that plaintiff has maintained a residence in Colorado for the last three years, without more, is insufficient to determine whether plaintiff is presently domiciled in Colorado. See Macias v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-00742-PAB, 2019 WL 1594255, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 15, 2019) (finding that police report from underlying accident listing defendant's address was insufficient to prove defendant's citizenship); see also Dumas v. Warner Literary Grp., LLC, No. 16-cv-00518-RM-NYW, 2016 WL 10879185, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 29, 2016) (stating that courts consider a number of factors in determining a party's citizenship, including "voter registration and voting practices; . . . location of brokerage and bank accounts; membership in unions, fraternal organizations, churches, clubs, and other associations; . . . [and] payment of taxes.").

Because 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

ORDERED that, on or before September 10, 2019, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company shall show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED August 30, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rios v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Aug 30, 2019
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02030-PAB (D. Colo. Aug. 30, 2019)
Case details for

Rios v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARINA RIOS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 30, 2019

Citations

Civil Action No. 19-cv-02030-PAB (D. Colo. Aug. 30, 2019)