Emiabata v. Hallmark County Mutual Insurance, 2:16-cv-00394

Plaintiffs Philip and Sylvia Emiabata sued two insurers in federal court alleging bad-faith denials and policy misinterpretation. The complaint did not allege a federal question basis for jurisdiction.
The court raised concern about diversity jurisdiction and scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties’ citizenship.
Philip testified that he and his wife permanently reside in Texas; his trucking sole proprietorship is headquartered, trucks are licensed, and his commercial driver’s license is issued in Texas; the business does some work in other states.
Plaintiffs had alleged dual citizenship of Texas and Wisconsin in the complaint, and said the business did a significant amount of work in Wisconsin; plaintiffs offered no evidence of Wisconsin domicile indicia (voting, property, bank accounts, licenses, taxes).
The court independently found in other filings that defendant Hallmark County Mutual Insurance is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, and PMA Insurance Group is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Because plaintiffs are domiciled in Texas and Hallmark is also a Texas citizen, the court concluded complete diversity was lacking, dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied the in forma pauperis motions as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists	Emiabata asserted dual citizenship (Texas and Wisconsin) for himself and wife	Defendants (via court’s investigation) are citizens of Texas (Hallmark) and Pennsylvania (PMA); plaintiffs did not prove Wisconsin domicile	No diversity: plaintiffs domiciled in Texas; Hallmark is Texas citizen; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Proper test for individual citizenship/domicile	Plaintiffs relied on physical presence in Wisconsin during business trips to show Wisconsin citizenship	Court applied domicile test (physical presence + intent), using indicia (voting, property, licenses, taxes) to infer intent	Court found only Texas indicia; transient presence in Wisconsin insufficient to establish domicile

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2006) (a person residing in more than one state is a citizen of but one state for diversity purposes)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2010) (corporate citizenship is state of incorporation and principal place of business)
Midwest Transit, Inc. v. Hicks, [citation="70 F. App'x 205"] (7th Cir. 2003) (domicile requires physical presence and intent; courts may weigh indicia such as voting, property, licenses, and taxes)