Travaglio v. American Express Co.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17153
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Travaglio sued multiple defendants under Florida law alleging deception, fraud, and conspiracy arising from post-accident conduct; she invoked federal jurisdiction solely by diversity.
- Her complaint alleged she was a "resident" of Florida but failed to plead domicile/citizenship for herself or citizenship for several defendants.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; Travaglio appealed.
- This Court remanded for limited jurisdictional findings because the complaint’s citizenship allegations were deficient and Travaglio did not amend or submit supporting evidence.
- On remand Travaglio still did not provide sworn evidence; the district court relied on an unsworn assertion in her brief that her "primary residence" was Florida and found complete diversity.
- The panel held the unsworn statement is not evidence and vacated the merits dismissal, instructing the district court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s pleadings and filings establish diversity jurisdiction | Travaglio relied on a statement in her brief that her "primary residence" is Florida to show she is a Florida citizen | Defendants pointed to record materials (SEC filings, affidavits) and Travaglio’s brief to argue complete diversity exists | Held: The unsworn statement in a brief is not evidence; the record lacks sufficient admissible proof of citizenship, so federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the appellate court may cure pleading defects from the record | Travaglio implicitly argued her brief sufficed to cure pleading defects | Defendants argued the record contains evidence to cure the defect | Held: Courts may look to the record to cure defects, but only admissible evidence or binding admissions suffice — an unsworn brief does not |
| Whether a district court’s jurisdictional fact findings based on the record were clearly erroneous | Travaglio argued the district court’s finding of Florida citizenship was correct | Defendants urged deference to district court findings based on record-sourced materials | Held: The district court’s finding rested on an unsworn, self-serving brief statement and lacked substantial evidence; the finding is unsupported |
| Proper remedy when jurisdictional allegations are deficient and not cured | Travaglio did not move to amend or supply evidence | Defendants urged affirmance based on record evidence and appellate review | Held: Vacate the merits dismissal and remand with instructions to dismiss for want of subject-matter jurisdiction (affirming dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction as to one defendant was left intact) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974) (citizenship for diversity requires domicile, not mere residence)
- Sun Printing & Publ’g Ass’n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904) (court may look to whole record to cure defective citizenship averment when evidence exists)
- Molinos Valle Del Cibao v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2011) (admissions and record evidence can cure pleading defects; admissions carry weight when against interest)
- Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001) (courts may review record to find evidence of diversity where pleadings are inadequate)
- Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) (diversity requires complete diversity between every plaintiff and every defendant)
- Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff must allege facts showing subject-matter jurisdiction exists)
- McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002) (domicile requires residence plus intent to remain)