J.A. Masters v. Beltramini, 117 F.4th 321

Plaintiffs J.A. Masters Investments and K.G. Investments brought state-law claims of fraud and breach of contract against Defendant Eduardo Beltramini in the Southern District of Texas.
The litigation proceeded on the assumption of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), based solely on the parties’ residency allegations in the pleadings.
After a jury trial and while on appeal, the Fifth Circuit identified a potential lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because citizenship—not just residency—must be expressly shown for diversity purposes.
The appellate court requested clarification, but parties only provided letters affirming their belief in diversity, not evidence establishing citizenship.
The district court, responding to the parties’ motion, found the parties were diverse, but the Fifth Circuit questioned the legal sufficiency of this finding based on the record.
The majority remanded for further proceedings to supplement the record with sufficient evidence of citizenship, while retaining jurisdiction pending any further appeal; one judge dissented, arguing that the district court had already resolved the issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether diversity jurisdiction was established by the record	Masters: Pleadings and joint letter suffice to show diversity	Beltramini: Parties are in fact diverse and stipulate as much	Remanded to district court to supplement record with sufficient proof of citizenship, as residency is insufficient
Whether district court's post-trial order finding diversity resolved the issue	Masters: District court order confirms diversity	Beltramini: District court’s findings should settle the matter	Fifth Circuit: District court's order insufficient without evidentiary basis; remand required
Whether parties can stipulate to jurisdiction	Parties: Joint stipulation should establish jurisdiction	Parties: Agreed; joint stipulation should suffice	Fifth Circuit: Parties' consent cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction
Procedural method for correcting defective allegations	Masters: Record can be supplemented in appellate court	Beltramini: Amendment should be allowed without remand	Fifth Circuit: Remand necessary to cure the defect through evidentiary supplementation

Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646 (citizenship and residence are not synonymous for jurisdictional purposes)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (jurisdictional facts must be supported by evidence, not mere allegation, if challenged)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Envt., 523 U.S. 83 (court cannot issue advisory opinions; must have jurisdiction supported in record)
Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties)
Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888 (an allegation of residency alone does not satisfy the requirement of citizenship for diversity)
Molett v. Penrod Drilling Co., 872 F.2d 1221 (remand appropriate when jurisdiction is unclear but potentially curable)