Joe M. Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company
359 F.2d 954, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6224 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The burden of proving diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction rests on the plaintiff, and while a prior domicile may be presumed to continue, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing a change in domicile, including facts occurring after the commencement of the lawsuit if they bear on the plaintiff's intent at the time of filing.
Facts:
- Joe M. Slaughter, born in Mississippi, lived in Laurel, Mississippi, with his mother, and voted there in 1960.
- In 1961, Joe M. Slaughter moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, and continuously resided there through the date of trial in 1965.
- Joe M. Slaughter had a Mississippi driver's license and was not registered to vote in Louisiana.
- Sometime in May or June 1962, Joe M. Slaughter moved from one address in New Orleans to another a block away.
- Joe M. Slaughter was involved in a collision in New Orleans, Louisiana, with a taxicab of Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co.
Procedural Posture:
- Joe M. Slaughter (appellant) sued Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. (appellee) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, claiming $50,000 for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision.
- Slaughter alleged federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, stating he was a citizen of Mississippi and Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. was a citizen of Louisiana.
- Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. denied diversity of citizenship, disputed the amount in controversy, and denied negligence, asserting Slaughter's negligence as the sole cause.
- A jury, through interrogatories, found Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co.'s driver negligent, this negligence was a proximate cause of Slaughter's injuries, and Slaughter was not negligent.
- The jury awarded Joe M. Slaughter damages in the amount of $2,200.
- Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The district court granted the motion, ruling that Joe M. Slaughter failed to sustain the burden of proving diversity of citizenship, and entered judgment for Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co., dismissing the complaint.
- Joe M. Slaughter appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's prior domicile shift the burden of proof to the defendant to show a change in domicile to defeat diversity jurisdiction, and can courts consider facts and circumstances occurring after the commencement of the action to determine citizenship at the time of filing?
Opinions:
Majority - JONES, Circuit Judge
No, a plaintiff's prior domicile does not shift the ultimate burden of proof to the defendant to show a change in domicile, as the burden of proving diversity jurisdiction always remains with the plaintiff. Yes, courts can consider facts and circumstances occurring after the commencement of the action, as long as they are relevant to determining the plaintiff's intent regarding domicile at the time the suit was filed. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the plaintiff, Joe M. Slaughter, failed to sustain his burden of proving diversity of citizenship. The appellate court clarified that while a prior domicile creates a presumption of its continuance, this presumption is met by a counter-presumption of domicile in the jurisdiction where the party resides at the crucial time (the commencement of the action). The court emphasized that the burden of proving diversity of citizenship lies with the plaintiff. It further stated that while evidence of facts occurring after the suit was filed ordinarily wouldn't change jurisdiction, such evidence was admissible, without objection in this case, to shed light on the plaintiff's intent and domicile at the time the suit was brought. The district court had sufficient evidence to conclude that Slaughter was a citizen of Louisiana at the time the suit was filed, thus negating diversity jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interplay between presumptions of domicile and the ultimate burden of proof in diversity jurisdiction cases. It reinforces that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and that evidence of a party's residence, even if collected after the suit is filed, can be relevant to determining their intent and domicile at the critical moment of filing. This ruling is significant for future cases as it provides guidance on the scope of evidence admissible to determine domicile and prevents plaintiffs from relying solely on a domicile of origin when there is clear evidence of a subsequent change in residence.
