CommentOnCase:Cegliav. ZuckerbergandFacebook,Inc.

(DiversityofCitizenship)
2012DanGoodman OnJune30,2010,complaintwasfiledintheSuperiorCourtofAlleganyCity,New York.Theplaintiff,PaulD.Ceglia.Thedefendants,MarkElliotZuckerbergand Facebook,Inc. CegliaallegedthatZukerberg,CEOofFacebook,haddefraudedhimofownership interestintheFacebookcorporation. PlaintiffCegliaassertsthatZuckerbergneededfundingtocompletedevelopment oftheTheFaceBookandthatthepartiesthenenteredintoawrittenagreement underwhichCegliapaid$1,000fora50%ownershipinZuckerbergscontemplated product..... PlaintiffassertsthattheallegedagreementcreatedapartnershipbetweenCeglia andZuckerberg,andhethenarguesthatitisthispartnershipthatholdsrightstothe productdevelopedthereundertowit,Facebook.[Footnote1]
http://www.pagemillpublishing.net/VCLRSample.pdf

(seepages4801thru4802,CegliasAllegedContractwithZuckerberg) OntheFirstAmendedComplaint,filedApril11,2011,Cegliaisavertobe: 5.PlaintiffCegliaisaresidentofWellsville,NewYorkwithanaddressof2558 HanoverHillRoad,Wellsvile,NewYork. WhileZuckerbergisavertobe: 6.DefendantZuckerbergcurrentlyresidesinCalifornia. AsforFacebook,Incorporated,itisavertobe: 7.DefendantFacebook,Inc.isacorporationorganizedunderthelawsoftheState ofDelawareandmaintainsitprincipalplaceofbusinessinPaloAlto,California. 1

 Facebook,Inc.wasincorporatedonJuly29,2004,underthenameofTheFaceBook, Inc.OnSeptember30,2005,itchangeditsnametoFacebook,Inc.
http://www.scribd.com/full/52865353?access_key=key1io555tf3t1qlswj4sth

Forpurposesofdiversityofcitizenship,Facebook,Incorporatedisacitizenofthe StateofDelawareandtheStateofCalifornia. However,forpurposesofdiversityofcitizenship,thestatecitizenshipofCeglia andZuckerbergarenotgiven.Residenceisnotthesameascitizenship.Inaddition, CegliaisnotavertobeacitizenoftheUnitedStates,norisZuckerberg. Onthesepoints: ...[T]hejurisdictionofthecircuitcourtfails,unlessthenecessarycitizenship affirmativelyappearsinthepleadingsorelsewhereintherecord....Theburden isontheplaintifftoaffirmativelyallegetheessentialelementsofdiversity jurisdiction.SeeMcNuttv.GeneralMotorsAcceptanceCorp.,298U.S.178,18889. McCrackenallegesthat{the}FordisincorporatedinDelawareand headquarteredinMichigan.Thus,FordisconsideredacitizenofbothDelawareand Michigan.TheplaintiffallegesthatheisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,butdoesnot makeanyallegationastohisstatecitizenship.Heallegesthathehasresided principallyinPennsylvania,NewYorkandDelawareoverthepasttenyears.These allegationsdonotestablishMcCrackensstatecitizenship. Sincetheplaintiffhasfailedtoallegethecitizenshipofoneofthepartiestothis action,hehasnotaffirmativelyallegedtheessentialelementsofdiversity jurisdiction.Accordingly,thecourtisdeprivedofjurisdictionandthisactionis dismissedpursuanttoRule12(b)(1)forlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. McCrackenv.FordMotorCompanyet.al.(EasternDistrictofPennsylvania),Civil Action,No.07CV2018,MemorandumDecision,2009.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09d0519p.pdf

ToothisisthecaseofSunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards(194U.S. 377,1904). Syllabus: Thefacts,whichinvolvedthesufficiencyofavermentsandproofofdiverse 2

citizenshiptomaintainthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesCircuitCourt,arestated intheopinionofthecourt. Opinion: WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo., supraandcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe 3

timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegal domicilofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanother State,District,orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenof DelawareoracitizenorsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthese contingencies,theCircuitCourtwouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthe controversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony,wearesatisfiedthattheavermentin thecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,wasintended tomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbeinterpretedasaverring,thatthe plaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327, 331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.SunPrinting&Publishing Associationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).
http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

Onthepointofresidence: Intheoralargumentbeforethiscourt,theinquiryarose,whethersincethe adoptionoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheFederalConstitutionthemere allegationofresidenceinIllinoisdidnotmakesuchaprimafaciecaseof citizenshipinthatStateas,intheabsenceofproof,shouldbedeemedsufficient tosustainthejurisdictionoftheCircuitCourt.Thatamendmentdeclaresthatall personsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdiction thereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStates,andoftheStatewheretheyreside.Itwas suggestedthataresidentofoneoftheStatesisprimafacieeitheracitizenofthe UnitedStatesoranalien,ifacitizenoftheUnitedStates,andalsoaresidentof oneoftheStates,heis,bythetermsoftheFourteenthAmendment,alsoacitizenof theStatewhereinheresides,andifanalien,hewasentitledinthatcapacityto sueintheFederalcourt,withoutregardtoresidenceinanyparticularState.Itisnot tobedeniedthatthereissomeforceinthesesuggestions,buttheydonotconvince usthatitiseithernecessaryorwisetomodifytherulesheretoforeestablishedbya longlineofdecisionsuponthesubjectofthejurisdictionoftheFederalcourts. ThosewhothinkthattheFourteenthAmendmentrequiressomemodificationof thoserules,claim,notthattheplaintiff'sresidenceinaparticularStatenecessarily orconclusivelyproveshimtobeacitizenofthatState,withinthemeaningofthe Constitution,butonlythatageneralallegationofresidence,withoutindicatingthe characterofsuchresidence,whethertemporaryorpermanent,madeaprimafacie caseofrighttosueintheFederalcourts.AsthejurisdictionoftheCircuitCourtis limitedinthesensethatithasnoneexceptthatconferredbytheConstitution andlawsoftheUnitedStates,thepresumptionnow,aswellasbeforethe adoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment,is,thatacauseiswithoutits 4

jurisdictionunlessthecontraryaffirmativelyappears.Incaseswhere jurisdictiondependsuponthecitizenshipoftheparties,suchcitizenship,orthe factswhichinlegalintendmentconstituteit,shouldbedistinctlyandpositively averredinthepleadings,ortheyshouldappearaffirmatively,andwithequal distinctness,inotherpartsoftherecord.Andsowherejurisdictiondependsupon thealienageofoneoftheparties.InBrownv.Keene(8Pet.115),Mr.ChiefJustice Marshallsaid:Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequirethattheavermentofjurisdiction shallbepositive,thatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhich jurisdictiondepends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferred argumentativelyfromitsaverments.Heretheonlyfactaverred,orappearingfrom therecord,isthatCeasewasaresidentofIllinois;andweare,ineffect,asked,in supportofthejurisdictionofthecourtbelow,toinferargumentatively,fromthe mereallegationofresidence,that,ifnotanalien,hehadafixedpermanent domicileinthatState,andwasanativeornaturalizedcitizenoftheUnitedStates, andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof.Bysuchargumentativeinferences,itis contendedthatweshouldascertainthefact,vitaltothejurisdictionofthecourt,of hiscitizenshipinsomeStateotherthanthatinwhichthesuitwasbrought.We perceivenothingineitherthelanguageorpolicyoftheFourteenthAmendment whichrequiresorjustifiesusinholdingthatthebareavermentoftheresidence ofthepartiesissufficient,primafacie,toshowjurisdiction.Thejudgmentmust, therefore,bereversed,uponthegroundthatitdoesnotaffirmativelyappearfrom therecordthatthedefendantinerrorwasentitledtosueintheCircuitCourt. Robertsonv.Cease:97U.S.646,at648thru650(1878).
http://books.google.com/books?id=utkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA648#v=onepage&q&f=false

UnlessoneaverstobeacitizenoftheUnitedStates,itwillbepresumedthatoneis notacitizenoftheUnitedStates: Thepetitionavers,thattheplaintiff,RichardRaynalKeene,isacitizenofthe stateofMaryland;andthatJamesBrown,thedefendant,isacitizenorresidentof thestateofLouisiana,holdinghisfixedandpermanentdomicilintheparishofSt. Charles.Thepetition,then,doesnotaverpositively,thatthedefendantisacitizen ofthestateofLouisiana,butinthealternative,thatheisacitizenoraresident. Consistentlywiththisaverment,hemaybeeither. ...AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybecomeacitizenofthatstateinwhich hehasafixedandpermanentdomicil;butthepetitionDOESNOTAVERthatthe plaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.... Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequire,thattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,andthatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom 5

itsaverments. TheanswerofJamesBrownasserts,thatbothplaintiffanddefendantare citizensoftheStateofLouisiana. Withoutindicatinganyopiniononthequestion,whetheranyadmissioninthe pleacancureaninsufficientallegationofjurisdictioninthedeclaration,weareallof opinionthatthisanswerdoesnotcurethedefectofthepetition.Iftheavermentof theanswermaybelookedinto,thewholeavermentmustbetakentogether.Itis thatbothplaintiffanddefendantarecitizensofLouisiana.Brownv.Keene:33U.S. (Peters8)112,at115thru116(1834).[Footnote2]

http://books.google.com/books?id=DUUFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sincethereisnoavermentofstatecitizenship,aswellasavermentofUnited Statescitizenship,thenafederalcourtwouldlackjurisdiction.Presumably,Ceglia andZuckerbergarecitizensoftheUnitedStates.Ifnot,thenbeingcitizensofa State,theywouldonlyhavetoaverbeingacitizenofaStateoftheUnion.[Footnote 3] ________________________ Footnotes: 1.OnJuly9,2010thecasewasremovedtotheU.S.DistrictCourt,WesternDistrict ofNewYork.Andisstillthere:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/newyork/nywdce/1:2010cv00569/

2.OnewhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,undertheFourteenthAmendment,isto averthatheorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateofthe Union: ThebillfiledintheCircuitCourtbytheplaintiff,McQuesten,allegedhertobe acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMassachusetts,andresidingat TurnerFallsinsaidState,whilethedefendantsSteiglederandwifewerealleged tobecitizensoftheStateofWashington,andresidingatthecityofSeattleinsaid State.StatementoftheCase,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141(1905). 6

TheavermentinthebillthatthepartieswerecitizensofdifferentStates wassufficienttomakeaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionsofarasitdependedon citizenship.Opinion,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141,at142(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment}

http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

3.Seemyworks: TwoDistinctStateCitizensForPurposesofDiversityOfCitizenship
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6862bd9e7a44215bf24 881db524e76f

DiversityofCitizenshipincludesaCitizenofaStatewhoisnotaCitizenofthe UnitedStates
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=ea3588f3a77341c19107 c0a7a2ae7383

DiversityofCitizenshipandaCitizenofaStatewhoisnotaCitizenoftheUnited States
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=532b04e79ef246a8a9c4 f8ce95109223

DiversityofCitizenshipandaCitizenoftheUnitedStates
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e98329b48a1b49469a40 2bfee2d69485