Overview
Case summary
This case involves a jurisdictional dispute over diversity citizenship in federal court. Plaintiff Bishop, a citizen of Montana, sued defendants Averill et ux. in Washington state court. Defendants removed the case to federal Circuit Court, alleging they were citizens of British Columbia, Canada, creating diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff challenged jurisdiction, and the court heard uncontradicted testimony from defendant G.W. Averill that he was a U.S. citizen formerly from Montana, had moved to Canada 15 months prior, was domiciled there, and intended to naturalize. The court held that allegations of foreign residence and intent to naturalize do not establish alienage for jurisdiction purposes, as citizenship, not residence, controls. Since defendants remained U.S. citizens, diversity jurisdiction was lacking, and the case was remanded to state court.
Abstract
Plaintiff sued defendants in state court, and defendants removed the case to federal court claiming diversity jurisdiction based on their alleged Canadian citizenship. The court found that defendants remained U.S. citizens despite their foreign residence and intent to naturalize, as citizenship rather than residence determines alienage for jurisdictional purposes. Lacking diversity jurisdiction, the case was remanded to state court.
Opinion of the court
opinionHANFORD, District Judge
- Citizenship, not residence, determines jurisdiction for diversity cases
- Defendants' residence in Canada and intent to naturalize do not make them aliens
- British Columbia is not a sovereign state, so allegiance to foreign sovereign cannot be inferred
- Precedent from Stuart v. City of Easton controls
Jurisdiction
challenged- Defendants alleged to be citizens of British Columbia, Canada
- Plaintiff alleged to be a citizen of Montana
- Defendants are actually U.S. citizens residing in Canada
Procedural posture
- Jurisdiction based on diverse citizenship
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Allegations insufficient; citizenship, not residence, determines jurisdiction
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Residence alone does not confer foreign citizenship; defendants remain U.S. citizens
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Jurisdictional determination based on citizenship allegations — de novo Jurisdiction is a legal question reviewed de novo
Timeline
Circuit Court ruled it lacks jurisdiction and remanded case to state court
Outcome: Case remanded
Final disposition on jurisdictional issue
Defendants left Montana with family and became permanently domiciled in Grand Forks, British Columbia, Canada
Establishes defendants' residence in foreign country but not citizenship change
Action commenced in superior court of Washington state
Initial filing of case
Defendants filed petition for removal to federal Circuit Court alleging diverse citizenship
Outcome: Case removed to federal court
Basis for federal jurisdiction claim
Plaintiff filed special plea to jurisdiction controverting defendants' citizenship allegations
Challenged jurisdictional basis
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
5 facts- Defendants G.W. Averill and F.A. Averill were formerly citizens of Montana
- About 15 months before action, defendants moved with family to Grand Forks, British Columbia, Canada, and became permanently domiciled there
- Defendant G.W. Averill testified he intends to become a naturalized citizen of Canada
- Plaintiff is a citizen of Montana
- Defendants petitioned for removal to federal court based on alleged diverse citizenship between U.S. citizen plaintiff and alien defendants
Disputed questions
- Whether defendants are aliens or citizens of a foreign state for jurisdictional purposes
Procedural history
4 steps- Action commenced in superior court of Washington state
- Defendants removed case to federal Circuit Court based on diversity jurisdiction
- Plaintiff filed special plea challenging jurisdiction
- Case tried on jurisdictional issue based on uncontradicted testimony of defendant G.W. Averill
Evidence in the record
- Uncontradicted testimony of defendant G.W. Averill that he is a U.S. citizen, formerly of Montana, now domiciled in Canada, and intends to naturalize there
- Petition for removal alleging defendants are citizens of British Columbia
- Special plea to jurisdiction filed by plaintiff
Authorities
Cited authorities (5)
Standards & doctrines
- Citizenship test for diversity jurisdiction
- Alienage requirement for jurisdiction involving foreign parties
Legal principles applied
- Citizenship, not place of residence, is the test of jurisdiction
- Allegiance to a foreign sovereign cannot be inferred from provincial residence
Notable quotes
“Citizenship, and not place of residence, is the test of jurisdiction.”majority — Court explaining the legal principle for determining diversity jurisdictionCore holding distinguishing citizenship from mere residence