« Faculty Fellow, The Center for Innovation Policy at Duke Law | Main | Leavenworth, Ep. 2: Casualties, part 2 »

Friday, November 01, 2019

Fun with diversity (Updated)

Two fun news stories on diversity.

1) President Trump announced yesterday that he was changing his domicile from New York to Florida, although he insists he enjoys living in the White House and plans to continue to do so for another five years. The jurisdiction essay for spring 2017 had Trump attempting to remove Summer Zervos' lawsuit; the best answer was despite having moved to Washington and owning property in Florida at which he spent a bit of time, he remained a New York citizen and was barred from removal by the Forum Defendant Rule.

So has Trump affected a change of domicile with his announcement, seeing as how he owns property and spends some part of the year in Florida? Or does he need to be present there more permanently after leaving the White House? Better still, does his stated desire to remain the White House five more years suggest an intent to remain (and thus a change to DC), at least for now?

2) I got a call from a journalist about this one. An insurance company filed suit against a Washington, D.C.-based law firm (a limited partnership). The firm moved to dismiss because it has a London office and a partner a U.S. citizen) who moved to London to staff the office, has been there for five years, and intends to remain in London for the foreseeable future, while keeping his U.S. citizenship. Because that London partner is domiciled in the U.K. while remaining a U.S. citizen, he is "stateless" for diversity purposes. And because a partnership takes on the citizenship of all partners, the partnership is stateless for diversity purposes. Thank you, Elizabeth Taylor.

I could not tell the reporter whether this was unusual or whether it was an increasing trend. The firm's motion cites a 1990 case from the Second Circuit holding that Sullivan Cromwell could not be sued in diversity because of its U.S.-citizen partners staffing overseas offices.

What I cannot figure out is why the firm (which filed its own suit in state court) would rather be in NC state court against a NC-based insurer. It is both an outsider to the state and a defendant, the two groups who generally want to be in federal court.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 1, 2019 at 01:58 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process, Law and Politics | Permalink


On # 1, domicile requires intent to stay indefinitely, so I'd think Trump's stated intent to stay in the White House for next five years (a definite period) would not be sufficient to establish domicile in DC.

Posted by: Emily Bremer | Nov 6, 2019 8:50:57 AM

Interesting thought. I wonder if there is something unique about insurance companies--are they unpopular in state court?

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Nov 2, 2019 12:09:44 PM

#2: Could it be because the firm takes a dim view of its legal position? Parties who believe they have the weaker side of the argument may prefer state court, where outcomes are considered (at least by some) more unpredictable.

Posted by: E | Nov 1, 2019 8:45:41 PM

Post a comment