## Facts

- Courtney J. Lundquist sued Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., Winnipesaukee Airlines, Inc., and Walter and Susan Fawcett to recover on promissory notes issued in connection with Lundquist’s sale of stock in Winnipesaukee Airlines, Inc.
- The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 but alleged only that Lundquist “resided” in Arlington, Massachusetts, not his state citizenship.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting Lundquist was a New Hampshire citizen at filing, like the defendants, defeating complete diversity; they submitted affidavits and other materials.
- Lundquist opposed, submitting affidavits asserting Florida citizenship and seeking leave to amend the complaint to allege Florida citizenship.
- The district court offered an evidentiary hearing; Lundquist’s counsel chose to rely on the written affidavits.
- Evidence supporting New Hampshire domicile included New Hampshire voter registration, a New Hampshire driver’s license, ownership of New Hampshire property and related taxes/filings, and corporate officer/director roles and filings indicating New Hampshire residency where state law required certain corporate positions to be held by state residents.
- Evidence supporting Florida domicile included Florida property and farm operations, a Florida bank account, a Florida driver’s license, Florida tax filings, social ties, and asserted intent to make Florida a permanent home.
- The district court found Lundquist was a New Hampshire citizen when the action commenced and dismissed for lack of complete diversity.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that, at the time the suit was filed, Lundquist was domiciled in New Hampshire, defeating complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Which party bears the burden of proving diversity jurisdiction when challenged, and what proof is required.
3. What objective indicators a federal court may weigh to determine domicile when a party claims a change of domicile.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that state citizenship for § 1332 purposes equals domicile, and domicile at the time of filing controls.
- The court ruled that domicile is a factual determination reviewed only for clear error.
- The court concluded Lundquist did not carry his burden to prove Florida domicile by competent proof and that the district court’s New Hampshire domicile finding was not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- For diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” is determined by domicile, not by allegations of residence.
- Domicile at the time the complaint is filed controls; later changes do not create or destroy jurisdiction.
- When diversity allegations are challenged, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden to prove citizenship with competent evidence.
- Domicile is determined from the totality of objective facts reflecting physical presence and intent to remain, including political rights (especially voter registration), official representations, property, and organizational or employment ties.
- Appellate review of a district court’s domicile finding is highly deferential; where the record supports more than one inference, the district court’s permissible weighing of evidence will be upheld absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the plaintiff failed to prove a Florida domicile at the time of filing, and the district court’s fact-bound determination—supported by strong New Hampshire indicators such as voter registration and residency-based corporate positions—was not clearly erroneous.


Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 946 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991)