Alliant Tax Credit Fund XVI, LTD. v. Thomasville Community Housing, LLC, 713 F. App'x 821

Background

Alliant plaintiffs (four Alliant entities) sued Thomasville and Muscogee (Georgia LLCs) in federal court in 2011 for breach of contract, invoking diversity jurisdiction. A magistrate judge entered judgment for Alliant plaintiffs in 2014.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit raised jurisdictional questions about whether the pleadings adequately alleged the citizenship of every partner/member for the Alliant partnerships and LLCs. The plaintiffs produced multiple affidavits from Melvin Gevisser (CFO of a related Alliant entity) and declarations/exhibits to prove citizenship.
The Eleventh Circuit issued a limited remand directing the district court to make specific findings as to the citizenship of each party and every member/partner at every level.
The magistrate judge found the submitted Gevisser affidavits inadmissible or insufficient to show personal knowledge or custodian status, struck a late affidavit as untimely, and found the parties’ joint statements and declarations conclusory regarding domicile.
The magistrate vacated the 2014 judgment and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to prove complete diversity at the time the complaint was filed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332	Alliant: pleadings, Gevisser affidavits, and joint statement established that no Alliant members were Georgia citizens	Defendants: plaintiffs failed to identify every member/partner or provide admissible proof of domicile; stipulated facts insufficient	Held: No diversity — plaintiffs failed to meet burden to prove every party’s citizenship at filing
Whether magistrate exceeded the appellate mandate by examining Alliant plaintiffs’ citizenships	Alliant: prior supplemental question only asked about defendants’ citizenships; magistrate thus exceeded mandate	Defendants: remand required specific findings for all parties; magistrate complied	Held: Magistrate complied with the court’s remand; no mandate violation
Admissibility of Gevisser affidavits and supporting exhibits as evidence of citizenship/business records	Alliant: Gevisser’s affidavits and produced records show knowledge and business records proving citizenship	Defendants: Gevisser lacked shown personal knowledge/custodian status; exhibits redacted, excerpts, and unauthenticated	Held: Affidavits/exhibits were inadmissible or insufficient under Rules 602 and 803(6); late affidavit properly excluded
Whether parties can stipulate to jurisdictional facts to establish diversity	Alliant: joint statement and stipulated facts suffice to show diversity	Defendants: parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction; stipulations must actually establish jurisdictional facts	Held: Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction; the conclusory declarations did not establish domicile, so stipulations didn’t create jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Parise v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 141 F.3d 1463 (11th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002) (party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof)
Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2011) (LLC citizenship requires identifying all members and their citizenships)
Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2010) (partnership citizenship requires identifying all partners/members)
Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2013) (domicile requires residence plus intent to remain; residence alone is insufficient)
W. Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach Cty., 41 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir. 1995) (parties may not stipulate to federal jurisdiction)
United States v. Garnett, 122 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1997) (Rule 803(6) requires testimony from a records custodian or qualified witness)
Farina v. Mission Inv. Tr., 615 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1980) (courts may refuse to accept untimely affidavits)