Dyson v. Benton

Background

Diana Dyson’s complaint stated that federal jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint alleged that Dyson was a citizen of New York and Curtis Benton was a citizen of North Carolina. The court independently examined whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Benton was served at an address in Mount Vernon, New York, and his answer listed the same address. The court held a January 29, 2024, hearing to determine Benton’s domicile at the time the complaint was filed. For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be completely diverse: every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. Citizenship for this purpose is generally based on domicile, not residence alone.

Domicile determination

Benton testified under oath that he lived primarily in Mount Vernon with his parents and paid them rent. He had a New York driver’s license, maintained a bank account in the Bronx, received medical and dental care in New York, filed New York state tax returns, and was registered to vote in New York. He estimated that he spent twelve to fourteen days each month in North Carolina, where he worked remotely from his son’s residence as a housing director for the Doe Fund. He traveled between the states and kept belongings in both.

The court found that the preponderance of the evidence—the greater weight of the evidence—showed that Benton was domiciled in New York. As a result, Dyson and Benton were both domiciled in New York, so complete diversity was absent. The court also stated that the complaint did not assert a claim arising under federal law.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also ordered that any pending motions were denied as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.