Carolyn Freidrich v. Thomas Davis
767 F.3d 374
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Freidrich and Davis are U.S. citizens; Freidrich sues in diversity for injuries from an in-flight incident.
- Davis allegedly domiciled in Germany since 1996; district court held he was German-domiciled, thus stateless for diversity purposes.
- District Court conducted limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing on domicile and found no Pennsylvania domicile for Davis.
- Record shows Davis retains some Pennsylvania ties (driver’s license, bank accounts, voting), but primarily lives and works in Germany.
- Freidrich appeals the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Davis remains a Pennsylvania citizen for diversity.
- The Third Circuit affirms the district court, concluding Davis is domiciled in Germany and Freidrich failed to prove diversity by a preponderance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity posture when American abroad | Friedrich argues Davis is Pennsylvania citizen; diversity exists. | Davis is domiciled in Germany; thus stateless for diversity. | Davis domiciled in Germany; stateless for diversity. |
| Burden of proof on domicile and diversity | Presumption of continued domicile in Pennsylvania applies to Davis. | Davis rebutted presumption with German domicile evidence. | Davis rebutted presumption; statutory diversity not established. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for German domicile | Davis’s intent to return to U.S. undermines German domicile. | Davis’s actions show German home and life; rebuttal credible. | Evidence supports German domicile; not clear error. |
| Effect of intent forms on domicile | 2012 Registration and Ballot form shows intent to return, supporting Pennsylvania domicile. | Intent to return is insubstantial amid broader ties to Germany. | Form alone insufficient; overall record shows German domicile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) (citizenship requires both US citizenship and state domicile)
- Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2008) (statelessness doctrine for citizens abroad under § 1332(a))
- McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2006) (clear-error review of factual domicile findings; burden on party asserting diversity)
- Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2011) (presumption of continued domicile; burden-shifting in domicile disputes)
- D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (dormant domicile concepts across circuits)
- ISI Int’l, Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 316 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2003) (diversity pitfall when domicile abroad)
- Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1990) (domicile determined by true, fixed home and intent to remain)