Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
457 F.2d 1320 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court has broad discretion to determine the procedure for resolving factual disputes related to subject matter jurisdiction. The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing so long as the plaintiff is given a fair opportunity to present facts through means such as depositions or affidavits.
Facts:
- Tanzymore filed a lawsuit against Bethlehem Steel Corporation seeking damages for personal injuries.
- Tanzymore claimed to be a domiciliary of Cleveland, Ohio.
- In a deposition, Tanzymore testified that he lived in a rented room in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
- Tanzymore also testified that he worked in Philadelphia and Baltimore prior to working in Bethlehem.
- He stated that he owned furniture, including a bed and tables, which were located at his Pennsylvania address, where he also received his mail.
- Tanzymore admitted he had not been back to Ohio since leaving and had no bank accounts, real estate, or club memberships there.
- He explained his reason for remaining in Pennsylvania was to be near his doctors for treatment related to his accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Tanzymore filed a complaint against Bethlehem Steel Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Bethlehem Steel filed an answer and took Tanzymore's deposition.
- Bethlehem Steel filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing there was no diversity of citizenship.
- Tanzymore did not file affidavits in opposition to the motion.
- The district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Tanzymore had failed to establish he was a citizen of Ohio.
- Tanzymore (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 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 district court abuse its discretion by resolving a factual dispute over diversity jurisdiction based on depositions and written submissions, without holding a full evidentiary hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons, Circuit Judge
No. A district court does not abuse its discretion by resolving jurisdictional facts without an evidentiary hearing, as the mode for determining jurisdiction is left to the trial court's discretion. The court distinguished its role in making a jurisdictional determination, where it acts as a fact-finder, from its role in a summary judgment motion on the merits, where it cannot resolve disputed facts. Citing precedents like Gibbs v. Buck, the court affirmed that there is no mandated statutory procedure for deciding a jurisdictional issue. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction when it is challenged. In this case, Tanzymore had a fair opportunity to present facts through his deposition and by filing affidavits—an opportunity he did not take. Given that his deposition testimony overwhelmingly contradicted his 'naked assertion' of Ohio domicile, the district court's decision to resolve the issue on the written record was a reasonable exercise of its discretion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the procedural authority of federal district courts in handling challenges to subject matter jurisdiction. It establishes that a court's fact-finding power on jurisdictional questions is fundamentally different and broader than on the merits of a case. The decision reinforces the principle that while an evidentiary hearing may be appropriate, it is not an absolute right for a plaintiff. This precedent gives courts significant flexibility to manage their dockets efficiently by resolving non-meritorious jurisdictional claims early through affidavits and depositions, placing a clear burden on the plaintiff to proactively support their jurisdictional allegations with concrete evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.