Clancy v. Mancuso

Background

Norman Clancy, proceeding without a lawyer, asserted six state-law claims based on alleged dental malpractice against Jerry Mancuso, Gerald Bittner, Jr., and Keith Cooper. Clancy relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. He alleged that the amount in controversy was $500,000, that he was a citizen of New York, and that Mancuso was a citizen of California. He did not allege the citizenship of Bittner or Cooper.

Bittner and Mancuso moved to dismiss. They made a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they disputed whether the facts actually supported federal jurisdiction. They presented evidence that Clancy had moved his family from New York to California in 2015 to work for a California employer, had used a California address in numerous court filings, and had sold New York real property in 2019. They also showed that Clancy had described himself as a California citizen in five other diversity cases filed between 2018 and 2020, including a case filed less than two months before this one. Clancy did not present evidence showing that his permanent home was New York when he filed this action on January 28, 2021.

Court’s reasoning

The court first held that the amended complaint was facially insufficient because it did not allege the citizenship of Bittner or Cooper. Thus, even accepting Clancy’s claimed New York citizenship, the complaint did not adequately allege complete diversity.

The court also considered the defendants’ evidence and found that Clancy was domiciled in California when he filed the action. Because a person’s state citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by domicile, the court found that Clancy was a California citizen rather than a New York citizen on the filing date. The court therefore concluded that diversity jurisdiction was lacking.

Disposition

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted the Moving Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the action in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate state forum. The clerk was directed to close the file. The order did not decide whether Clancy’s dental malpractice claims were legally valid.