## Facts

- Gary T. Seyler and Deborah A. Seyler were citizens of Pennsylvania.
- They sued Steuben Motors, Inc. (an auto dealer) and Volkswagen of America, Inc. asserting only state-law claims.
- The complaint invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction solely under diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The district court found Steuben Motors’ principal place of business was York, Pennsylvania, making it a Pennsylvania citizen for diversity purposes.
- Because plaintiffs and Steuben Motors shared Pennsylvania citizenship, the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Steuben Motors’ principal place of business was in York, Pennsylvania, thereby defeating complete diversity.
2. Whether pendent jurisdiction or ancillary jurisdiction could sustain federal jurisdiction despite the lack of complete diversity in a diversity-only case.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal in a per curiam decision.
- The finding that Steuben Motors’ principal place of business was in York, Pennsylvania was not clearly erroneous.
- Complete diversity was absent because at least one plaintiff shared state citizenship with one defendant.
- Pendent jurisdiction under *United Mine Workers v. Gibbs* did not apply because the case involved no federal-question claim.
- Ancillary jurisdiction and cited Third Circuit precedents did not permit retaining a diversity-only case lacking complete diversity.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity: no plaintiff may share citizenship with any defendant.
- For § 1332(c) purposes, a corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and its principal place of business.
- Appellate review of a district court’s finding on a corporation’s principal place of business is under the clearly erroneous standard.
- Pendent jurisdiction requires an independent basis of federal jurisdiction (typically a federal question) to which related state claims may attach; it does not supply jurisdiction for purely state-law claims when diversity is lacking.
- Ancillary jurisdiction does not override the complete-diversity requirement when diversity is the sole asserted jurisdictional basis.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that because Steuben Motors was a Pennsylvania citizen by principal place of business and the plaintiffs were also Pennsylvania citizens, complete diversity was destroyed and the federal courts lacked jurisdiction; pendent or ancillary jurisdiction could not cure the absence of complete diversity in a case asserting only state-law claims.


Seyler v. Steuben Motors, Inc., 462 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1972)