Citation: Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc., 2003 WL 21555767 (2003)
Procedural History
Mary Ann Hawkins, acting as the personal representative of the estate of James Patrick Creal, and Rachel Baldwin, an heir, (together, the plaintiffs) brought a wrongful death action in federal court against Masters Farms, Inc. and its operator, Jack E. Masters (the defendants).
The suit was based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The defendants challenged subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that there was no complete diversity between the parties, and moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Facts of United States District Court for the District of Kansas
On December 8, 2000, James Patrick Creal was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident on Mineral Point Road, south of Troy, Kansas. His van collided with a tractor owned by Masters Farms, Inc. and driven by Jack E. Masters, a Kansas resident. The incident led to the filing of a wrongful death claim in federal court.
Before his death, Creal had a long history of living in Missouri, specifically with his mother in St. Joseph. However, starting in January 2000—eleven months before his death—Creal began spending his nights in Kansas, staying with his partner (later his wife) Elizabeth Creal.
Initially, he would return to Missouri during the day after work, but by March 2000, he was living with Elizabeth more permanently. Eventually, they moved from an apartment into a house together in Troy, Kansas, where they shared living expenses.
Despite residing in Kansas at the time of his death, Creal maintained several personal and legal ties to Missouri. He applied for a Missouri vehicle title and insurance using his mother’s Missouri address. In March 2000, he again used that Missouri address when applying for a loan and obtaining a new vehicle title listing a new lienholder.
In April 2000, he renewed his Missouri driver’s license for three more years using that same address. In May 2000, he also listed the address on a life insurance form. His mail, including pay stubs, continued to be sent to his mother’s home, where he would occasionally visit on weekends.
The plaintiffs argued that Creal’s longstanding connections to Missouri supported Missouri citizenship, which would support diversity jurisdiction in federal court. They emphasized that at least one of the plaintiffs was a Missouri resident and that Creal still maintained personal and administrative ties to Missouri.
The defendants countered that Creal had physically and permanently relocated to Kansas and intended to remain there, making him a Kansas citizen. Since the defendants were also Kansas citizens, they argued that there was no complete diversity, and therefore, the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
Issue
The central legal issue in Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. was:
Whether there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties such that federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 could be established.
This depended entirely on determining whether James Patrick Creal was a citizen of Kansas or Missouri at the time of his death.
Rule of Law
For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a person is considered a citizen of the state in which they are “domiciled.” Under well-established federal law, domicile requires two elements:
- Physical presence in the state; and
- Intent to remain in that state.
Citizenship does not hinge on where a person maintains contacts or receives mail but rather where they are physically present with an intent to make it their home. Additionally, the party invoking federal jurisdiction (in this case, the plaintiffs) bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction is proper. A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) may challenge either the sufficiency of jurisdictional allegations or the factual basis for jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning in United States District Court for the District of Kansas
The court in Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. focused on whether Creal had taken sufficient steps to establish Kansas as his domicile before his death. It acknowledged that Creal had historical ties to Missouri and continued to use his mother’s Missouri address for various administrative and financial purposes. However, it emphasized that such ties were not enough to establish Missouri citizenship if the facts showed a permanent relocation to Kansas.
The court observed that from January 2000 onward, Creal began sleeping and living in Kansas. By March 2000, he had significantly reduced his trips to Missouri, limiting visits to approximately once a week.
He moved his personal belongings into the Kansas residence, contributed to household expenses with his wife, and lived exclusively in Kansas until the date of the accident. His death certificate also listed Kansas as his place of residence.
Although Creal maintained his Missouri driver’s license and had insurance and other documents referencing Missouri, these actions were not deemed sufficient to override the reality of his Kansas residence. The court also noted that even if Creal and his wife occasionally discussed moving closer to Missouri in the future, they had not made any specific or actionable plans to do so.
Thus, the court found that Creal had both the physical presence in Kansas and the intent to remain there, satisfying the legal standard for domicile. As such, Creal was considered a Kansas citizen at the time of his death.
United States District Court for the District of Kansas Judgment
The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that James Patrick Creal was a citizen of Missouri at the time of his death. Because Creal was domiciled in Kansas (and the defendants were also Kansas citizens) complete diversity was lacking. Therefore, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Conclusion
In Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc., the court reinforced the rule that domicile (not mere residence, mailing address, or continued connections) determines citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. James Patrick Creal had established domicile in Kansas through his physical relocation and intention to stay, even though he retained some ties to Missouri. Consequently, there was no diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The case was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1).