Gregory Heinen v. Northrop Grumman
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2397
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Heinen agreed to relocate to Illinois to work for Northrop Grumman while living in California.
- Suit was filed in state court and removed to federal court under diversity jurisdiction by Northrop.
- Northrop alleged Heinen resided in Massachusetts, raising citizenship concerns under 28 U.S.C. §1332.
- Domicile questions arose; residence alone does not determine citizenship for purposes of removal.
- Amended removal notice showed Heinen and family had a Massachusetts home, voter registration, and a Massachusetts driver’s license, establishing domicile.
- Court denied Heinen’s remand motion; jurisdiction was confirmed and case proceeded to merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether domicile establishes federal subject-matter jurisdiction | Heinen contends domicile was not proven; court should remand. | Northrop argues domicile shown by residence-related indicia; subject-matter jurisdiction exists. | Domicile established; jurisdiction affirmed. |
| Scope of arbitration agreement to relocation benefits | Relocation benefits are collateral to employment contract and not covered. | Dispute Resolution Process covers any employment-related claim, including relocation benefits. | Arbitration clause broad enough to cover relocation-benefit disputes. |
| Whether relocation dispute is subject to arbitration under the Dispute Resolution Process | Relocation benefits dispute falls outside employment-related claims. | Relocation benefits are employment-related; arbitration applies. | Relocation-benefit dispute falls within arbitration scope. |
| Sanctions under Rule 38 | N/A | Requests sanctions for improper briefing should be entertained. | Sanctions denied; improper briefing not raised in a separate motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561 (1915) (residence vs domicile for citizenship determination)
- Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141 (1905) (domicile governs citizenship for removal)
- Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121 (1891) (residence not sufficient for citizenship)
- Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646 (1878) (domicile requirement for citizenship)
- Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (finality of arbitration award under FAA; preemption of remand rulings)
- Greviskies v. Universities Research Association, Inc., 417 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2005) (sanctions and briefing practices guidance)
- In re Bero, 110 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1997) (sanctions considerations in appellate practice)