Hearts With Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick, 856 F.3d 1

Hearts With Haiti (a North Carolina corporation) and its founder Michael Geilenfeld sued Paul Kendrick for defamation, false light, and tortious interference based on Kendrick's public accusations that Geilenfeld sexually abused boys at a Haitian orphanage.
A jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $14.5 million. Kendrick appealed raising trial-error claims.
While the appeal was pending, Kendrick's counsel raised a plausible challenge to federal subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) because Geilenfeld may be domiciled abroad.
The Court of Appeals remanded for the district court to decide jurisdiction; the district court dismissed the case for lack of diversity, finding Geilenfeld domiciled in Haiti (a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad is not a citizen of any state).
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal; Kendrick cross-appealed trial rulings. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal, resolving both appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists	Geilenfeld is an Iowa citizen (registered voter, license, bank account) so diversity exists	Geilenfeld is domiciled in Haiti (long residence, property, employment, taxes, intent to remain) and thus not a state citizen	Held: No diversity; Geilenfeld domiciled in Haiti; district court not clearly erroneous
Whether voting registration alone determines domicile for § 1332 purposes	Voting registration is dispositive of state citizenship	Domicile requires multi-factor, intent-based inquiry; voting alone is insufficient	Held: Voting registration is not conclusive; traditional multifactor domicile test applies
Whether the district court should cure jurisdictional defect by dropping Geilenfeld under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21	Request to dismiss Geilenfeld to preserve diversity and the jury award for Hearts With Haiti	Dropping would be unfair to Kendrick because Geilenfeld’s presence produced tactical advantages at trial	Held: District court did not abuse discretion refusing to drop Geilenfeld; dismissal affirmed
Whether appellate court should reach Kendrick’s trial-error claims	Plaintiffs urge review of trial errors	No jurisdiction remains after dismissal for lack of diversity	Held: Appeals on trial errors dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (state citizenship requires U.S. citizenship plus state domicile)
D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (citizens domiciled abroad are citizens of no state)
Rodríguez-Díaz v. Sierra-Martínez, 853 F.2d 1027 (1st Cir. 1988) (definition of domicile as true, fixed home and intent to return)
Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1992) (district court domicile findings reviewed for clear error)
Shelton v. Tiffin, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 163 (U.S. 1848) (discusses voting and domicile but treats registration without voting as inconclusive)
Brown v. Keene, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 112 (U.S. 1834) (early discussion of domicile principles cited in modern cases)
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (authorizes dismissal of nondiverse parties where appropriate)
Perry v. Blum, 629 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (Rule 21 dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Gorfinkle v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 431 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2005) (consideration of prejudice when dropping a nondiverse party)
Sweeney v. Westvaco Co., 926 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1991) (same)