192 F. Supp. 3d 181
D. Me.2016Background
- This is an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs Hearts With Haiti, Inc. (HWH) and Michael Geilenfeld filed suit in 2013 in the District of Maine against Paul Kendrick, invoking diversity jurisdiction and amount in controversy.
- A jury verdict in 2015 awarded damages to both plaintiffs and Mr. Geilenfeld’s appeal prompted First Circuit remand for domicile findings.
- On remand, the Court found Geilenfeld domiciled in Haiti as of February 6, 2013, rendering him stateless for diversity purposes and depriving the Court of jurisdiction.
- The Court held that finality principles do not cure the lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the case, denying the amendment to reflect diversity.
- The decision also concluded HWH could not preserve the action without the nondiverse party (Geilenfeld) and deemed him indispensable under Rule 19(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diversity existed at filing. | Geilenfeld domiciled in Iowa at filing. | Geilenfeld was domiciled in Haiti; no diversity existed. | No diversity; lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the amendment to pleadings to show jurisdiction should be allowed. | Complete diversity existed; amendment appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1653. | amendment would not cure lack of jurisdiction; immunity issues remain. | Denied; amendment not allowed to create jurisdiction. |
| Whether HWH can proceed if Geilenfeld is nondiverse (indispensable party). | HWH should keep its verdict; Kenda rck’s claims against Kendrick remain viable. | Geilenfeld indispensable; the action should be dismissed for lack of complete diversity. | Geilenfeld indispensable; case dismissed. |
| Effect of lack of jurisdiction on the verdict and finality. | Finality of judgment should not be undermined by jurisdictional defects. | Juridical defects persist despite final verdict. | Finality cannot override jurisdictional defect; case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1989) (diversity requires US citizen to be domiciled in a state)
- Padilla-Mangual v. Pavía Hosp., 516 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2008) (domicile requires physical presence and intent; multiple factors used)
- Bank One v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1992) (voting registration as a weighty factor in domicile)
- García Pérez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348 (1st Cir. 2004) (holistic approach to domicile factors; broad evidentiary inquiry allowed)