Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Uvezian
- Denise Cote
- 1:15-cv-04212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Travelers Casualty v. Uvezian, Judge Cote required proof of the plaintiff’s citizenship before continuing to assess diversity jurisdiction.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company had to provide evidence of its citizenship; the case’s further proceedings depended on resolving subject matter jurisdiction. Jeffrey Avo Uvezian was affected as the opposing party.
What happened
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Uvezian began with a claim based on a federal bond statute, but the company later relied on diversity jurisdiction. The case had been settled and discontinued, then reopened after the parties failed to complete that settlement.
The company said it was incorporated in Connecticut and had its main business office in Hartford, Connecticut. Uvezian argued that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the original complaint did not plead it and because the company had not provided sufficient proof of its main business location.
Judge Denise Cote ruled that failing to plead diversity jurisdiction originally did not require dismissal if the required facts existed from the beginning. She ordered the company to submit a declaration or affidavit proving its citizenship by June 17, 2020, and scheduled a telephone conference for June 19, 2020.
The detailed version
- Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Uvezian · No. 1:15-cv-04212
- Denise Cote
- June 11, 2020
Background
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company filed this action on June 1, 2015. Its complaint relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1352, which gives federal district courts jurisdiction over actions on bonds executed under federal law. The court explained that Second Circuit precedent holds that an action enforcing an indemnification agreement connected to a bond is not an action “on a bond” within that statute.
The complaint alleged that Travelers was incorporated in Connecticut and that Jeffrey Avo Uvezian was domiciled in New York. It also alleged that Travelers maintained corporate offices in New York, but it did not directly state where Travelers had its principal place of business.
The parties entered a settlement, and the court entered a Stipulation and Order of Settlement on February 17, 2016. After later settlement-related filings, the court discontinued the action on May 8, 2020, while allowing it to be restored to the calendar if an application was made by June 9. Travelers then reported that the parties had failed to complete a settlement agreement, and the court reopened the action on June 3.
Jurisdiction dispute
Travelers abandoned its reliance on Section 1352 and argued that the court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In a letter, Travelers stated that it was incorporated in Connecticut and maintained its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.
Uvezian argued that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Travelers had not pleaded it in the original complaint. He also argued that Travelers had not submitted competent proof of its principal place of business.
The court explained that a complaint should adequately allege the facts supporting diversity jurisdiction, but the actual existence of diversity jurisdiction from the beginning does not depend on perfect pleading. If the facts establishing diversity existed all along, a court may allow the complaint to be amended to state those facts. The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence, and jurisdictional evidence may be submitted by affidavit or other means.
Order
The court stated that Travelers would seemingly be able to establish diversity jurisdiction and that its failure to plead diversity jurisdiction in the original complaint did not require dismissal. However, the court found that assertions by Travelers’s counsel in a letter were insufficient to meet Travelers’s burden of proving jurisdiction.
The court ordered Travelers to submit a declaration or affidavit concerning its citizenship by June 17, 2020. It also scheduled a telephone conference for June 19, 2020, at which the court would establish a schedule for further proceedings. The order did not dismiss the action or make a final determination that diversity jurisdiction had been established.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.