Vaughan v. Southern Ry. Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Krier-Hawthorne v. Beam

    728 F.2d 658 (4th Cir. 1984)   Cited 11 times
    In Krier-Hawthorne v. Beam, 728 F.2d 658 (4th Cir. 1984), Judge Murnaghan argued in dissent that the court should answer in the negative the following question: "'Should federal jurisdiction... depend on the fortuitous circumstance that one party to the controversy happened to die before the controversy reached the litigation stage?

    Conversely, the court lacks jurisdiction when the statutory beneficiaries and the defendant have identical citizenship even though the plaintiff administrator and the defendant are citizens of different states. See Mullins v. Seals, 562 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1977); Vaughan v. Southern Ry. Co., 542 F.2d 641 (4th Cir. 1976); Bishop, 495 F.2d 289; Lester, 415 F.2d 1101. Nevertheless, we have not departed altogether from the jurisdictional precept of Mecom.

  2. Sadler v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.

    432 F. Supp. 604 (E.D.N.C. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    The defendant contends that the citizenship of the takers under the will, North Carolina citizens, should control. In support of this position, the defendant cites several authorities, in particular Miller v. Perry, 456 F.2d 63 (4 Cir. 1972) and Vaughan v. Southern Ry. Co., 542 F.2d 641 (4 Cir. 1976). If the court accepts this argument, the requisite diversity will not exist.

  3. Gross v. Hougland

    712 F.2d 1034 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that a fiduciary "may rely upon his citizenship if he can establish that he is the real party in interest by demonstrating that the law of the appointing authority permits him to sue in his own name, without joining any of the persons that he represents"

    The Fourth Circuit has concluded that an administrator may not rely upon his citizenship to establish diversity jurisdiction when his appointment is required by the law of the forum state as a prerequisite to bringing an action in the forum. E.g., Vaughn v. Southern Rwy. Co., 542 F.2d 641, 645-46 (4th Cir. 1972). The Fourth Circuit approach effectively abandons any notion that the purpose for the appointment is an important factor under Sec. 1359. Vaughn v. Southern Rwy. Co., 542 F.2d at 644.

  4. Messer v. American Gems, Inc.

    612 F.2d 1367 (4th Cir. 1980)   Cited 17 times
    Finding administrator to be nominal party and holding that beneficiaries' citizenship controlled for diversity purposes

    In our opinion, it clearly does not. Subsequent to the decisions in Lester, Miller and Bishop, this Court had before it Vaughan v. Southern Ry. Co., 542 F.2d 641 (4th Cir. 1976). The case concerned a fatal accident in North Carolina to a Virginia resident.

  5. Pallazola v. Rucker

    797 F.2d 1116 (1st Cir. 1986)   Cited 25 times
    Noting that "[i]n the absence of a class action," the exception applies only where the same complaining party is likely to face the same situation again

    Section 1359 continues to engender dispute within the Fourth Circuit. Compare Krier-Hawthorne v. Beam, 728 F.2d 658, 661-62 (4th Cir. 1984) (citizenship of personal representative who has more than nominal role is decisive) with id. at 671-72 (Murnaghan, J., dissenting) (urging adoption of American Law Institute rule that citizenship of decedent controls); and Vaughan v. Southern Railway, 542 F.2d 641, 643-44 (4th Cir. 1976) (citizenship of beneficiaries of wrongful death claim controls) with id. at 645 (Butzner, J., dissenting) (majority decision, though motivated by laudable desire for symmetry and reform, is supported by neither statute nor precedent). We are not the first to observe that "[t]he situation in the Fourth Circuit is unclear."

  6. Betar v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.

    603 F.2d 30 (7th Cir. 1979)   Cited 40 times
    In Betar v. DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 603 F.2d 30, 32 (7th Cir. 1979), we stated the general rule that "the citizenship of the real party in interest is determinative in deciding whether the district court has diversity jurisdiction."

    The reason for appointing the representative here is insufficient to establish more than a nominal relationship between the representative and the cause. Bishop, supra (remanding under § 1359 although administrator appointed for experience in business affairs); Vaughan v. Southern Ry., 542 F.2d 641 (4th Cir. 1976) (remanding under § 1359 although purpose of bringing suit in North Carolina with required resident representative was to locate litigation close to witnesses and scene of accident). Thus it is clear that the beneficiaries could not have used the citizenship of this administrator to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction.

  7. Sadler v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.

    588 F.2d 914 (4th Cir. 1978)   Cited 8 times
    In Sadler v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, 588 F.2d 914 (4th Cir. 1978), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that "the executrix is a real party in interest and her citizenship, rather than that of the beneficiaries, should control the determination of diversity jurisdiction."

    Id. at 297; see Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823, 89 S.Ct. 1487, 23 L.Ed.2d 9 (1969); Lester v. McFaddon, 415 F.2d 1101 (4 Cir. 1969); McSparran v. Weist, 402 F.2d 867 (3 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 903, 89 S.Ct. 1739, 23 L.Ed.2d 217 (1969). As in Miller, Vaughan v. Southern Railway Co., 542 F.2d 641 (4 Cir. 1976), involved a North Carolina ancillary administrator bringing a wrongful death action in North Carolina federal district court on behalf of non-resident beneficiaries. The defendants, however, were not citizens of North Carolina, but of Virginia, the domicile of the beneficiaries.

  8. Mullins v. Seals

    562 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1977)   Cited 7 times
    Remanding wrongful death action to state court after removal by defendant based on diversity between personal representative and defendant

    [16] ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring specially. I concur in the opinion of the majority because, as it amply demonstrates, the evidence rulings at trial were faulty and necessitated a new trial, and also because the present jurisdictional ruling is permitted by our decision in Vaughan v. Southern Ry. Co., 4 Cir., 542 F.2d 641 (1976). But I have reservations upon the correctness of the denial of jurisdiction.

  9. Prudential Oil Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

    546 F.2d 469 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that where a nondiverse parent corporation assigns a claim to its wholly owned, diverse subsidiary engaged in no other business than prosecuting the claim, the assignment is presumptively improper

    The liberal interpretation given to § 1359 by the Supreme Court in Kramer was applied by us in O'Brien v. Avco Corp., 425 F.2d 1030 (2d Cir. 1969), where we held that the appointment of an administrator of an estate for the purpose of creating federal jurisdiction violated § 1359 and construed that section as barring "agreements whose primary aim was to vest the court with a jurisdiction it had not formerly enjoyed," id. 1034. See also Vaughn v. Southern Railway Co., 542 F.2d 641 (4th Cir. 1976). The reasoning behind our interpretation of the statute was well summarized by Judge [now Chief Judge] Kaufman in O'Brien:

  10. Pallazola v. Rucker

    621 F. Supp. 764 (D. Mass. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    There has been some suggestion by the plaintiff that, should I find no diversity on the basis of her citizenship, I should look to the citizenship of the sole beneficiary Donald Michaud, that I should find him to have been a citizen of New York, and that I should therefore conclude that there is diversity. Some courts, having discounted the "manufactured" diverse citizenship of the nominal plaintiff, have indeed attributed the citizenship of the beneficiary to the plaintiff for the purpose of that action, see, e.g., Vaughan v. Southern Ry. Co., 542 F.2d 641, 643-4 (4th Cir. 1976), though ordinarily for the purpose of defeating rather than finding diversity. I need not decide whether similar attribution would be appropriate in a case such as this in order to create diversity because it is clear from the evidence adduced at the hearing that Donald Michaud was a citizen of Massachusetts and not of New York in November 1980, the time of the filing of this action.