This is the law in the First Circuit. See Garcia v. Bernabe, 288 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir. 1961); Gans v. Gant, No. 12-cv-279-SM, 2013 WL 3354436, at *3 (D.N.H. July 3, 2013). The party invoking the court's jurisdiction has the burden of alleging facts sufficient to support a conclusion that jurisdiction exists.
In a Per Curiam opinion of this court on March 28, 1961, 288 F.2d 60, the deficiency of the original complaint in alleging federal jurisdiction was noted. We allowed time for the filing of a motion for leave to amend.
See generally Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 325 (1888) ("This court has always been very particular in requiring a distinct statement of the citizenship of the parties, and of the particular State in which it is claimed, in order to sustain the jurisdiction of [federal] courts."). See also Garcia v. Bernabe, 288 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir. 1961) ("The allegations of residence are insufficient to establish jurisdiction [under 28 U.S.C. § 1332]."); Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F.2d 663, 663-64 (1st Cir. 1953) ("[I]t is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff-appellant's decedent at the time he brought this action about a year before his death was a 'resident' of Michigan, and that the defendants are 'residents' of Massachusetts. Clearly these are insufficient allegations of diversity of 'citizenship' necessary for federal jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)).