Challenging an
Individual’s Domicile
A recent decision from the
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed the
factors and the burdens of proof applied in determining what is the domicile of
an individual for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. In this instance, it was determined that the
defendant is domiciled in Michigan (and not in Florida as the plaintiff
asserted), so diversity did not exist and the complaint was dismissed. Art Van Furniture LLC v. Zimmer, Civil
Act. No. 19-CV-10880, 2019 WL 2433245 (Ed. Mich. June 11, 2019).
Art Van Furniture filed suit
against Zimmer, who reading between the lines of the opinion appears to have
been a former employee thereof, as well as several other furniture companies
for whom Zimmer is now working. In its complaint, Art Van identified itself as
being a citizen of Michigan, the other defendant companies as citizens of
Wisconsin, and Zimmer as a citizen of Florida and New York. Zimmer sought to
dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the
basis that in fact he is a citizen of Michigan and diversity jurisdiction does
not exist. Shortly before this action was filed, Zimmer began working for
defendant Kingswere Furniture, LLC in Tampa, Florida, where he resided in an
apartment. On that basis, it was asserted that he was a citizen of Florida. In
the alternative, it was pointed out that he owned property in New York and had
there as well filed tax returns and registered a car; on that basis, it was
asserted that he could be a citizen of New York. In opposition, Zimmer filed a
series of declarations explaining that, while he might be working in Florida,
his family remains in Michigan and that it is to Michigan that he intends to
ultimately return.
On the facts, it was held that
the plaintiffs had not met their burden of demonstrating that Zimmer is
domiciled in Florida (as contrasted with merely resident there from time to
time). The court went on to observe that:
But residency,
minus intent to remain permanently, does not equal domicile. Nor do the facts
that Zimmer owns property in, or that he is paid taxes in, or that he has a
driver’s license from another state shed any light on the critical question of
where he permanently resides and intends to remain.
In contrast,
Zimmer avers that he is currently registered to vote in Michigan, that he lives
in Florida only during the week and only for work purposes, that Michigan is
his and his family’s home and the place of his primary residence, and that he
intends to remain in Michigan indefinitely.
On that basis, it was held that
Zimmer is a citizen of Michigan. There being no diversity jurisdiction, the
suit was dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment