Poblete v. Residential Credit Opportunities Trust
Civil Action No. 2017-2527
| D.D.C. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Luis Ivan Poblete, proceeding pro se, filed a "Complaint and TRO" seeking emergency injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Plaintiff invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Complaint’s caption shows both Poblete and a defendant, Stephen Hassler, as residents of Washington, D.C.
- Plaintiff did not plead facts establishing the parties’ domiciles beyond the caption and thus did not allege citizenship in any State other than D.C.
- The court found on the face of the Complaint that complete diversity was lacking and that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of pleading citizenship.
- The court denied the TRO, dismissed the Complaint sua sponte without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and issued a separate order reflecting that decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (complete diversity) | Poblete invoked diversity jurisdiction (asserted amount in controversy) | Not developed in briefing; the Complaint’s caption indicates a defendant shares D.C. residency with Poblete | No complete diversity; court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether plaintiff met burden of pleading the citizenship (domicile) of each party | Plaintiff did not plead detailed citizenship facts beyond residency in D.C. | N/A (court may consider on its own) | Plaintiff failed to meet pleading burden; court may and did dismiss sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978) (complete diversity requirement between every plaintiff and every defendant)
- Loughlin v. United States, 393 F.3d 155 (2004) (party invoking diversity jurisdiction bears burden of pleading each party’s citizenship)
- Prakash v. Am. Univ., 727 F.2d 1174 (1984) (domicile determines citizenship; physical presence is only one factor)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (1983) (burden and requirement to plead citizenship for diversity jurisdiction)