## Facts

- Eugene Tanzymore sued Bethlehem Steel Corporation in federal court seeking damages for personal injuries.
- The complaint alleged Tanzymore was domiciled in Ohio and that Bethlehem Steel was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
- Bethlehem Steel contested subject-matter jurisdiction after taking Tanzymore’s deposition, asserting the evidence did not support Ohio citizenship.
- Tanzymore did not submit affidavits or other materials to support his claimed Ohio domicile in response to the motion to dismiss.
- The district court relied on the deposition and related written materials, found Tanzymore had not shown Ohio citizenship (and that the record suggested Pennsylvania residence), and dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may resolve a disputed question of domicile for diversity jurisdiction on pleadings, deposition testimony, and motion papers without conducting an evidentiary hearing at which the plaintiff testifies.
2. Whether a plaintiff satisfies the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction by asserting an intent to remain domiciled in a state without supporting objective facts.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the plaintiff bore the burden to prove diversity and failed to carry that burden on the record presented.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing is not required as a matter of right when the plaintiff had an opportunity to submit supporting evidence and did not do so.
- The court concluded the district court permissibly determined domicile from the existing written record, including deposition testimony.

## Legal Principles

- The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the facts necessary to establish it, including diversity of citizenship.
- A district court may determine disputed jurisdictional facts, including domicile, when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- An evidentiary hearing is not automatically required to resolve a contested jurisdictional fact where the plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to present evidence (such as affidavits) and instead relies on conclusory assertions.
- A stated intent to remain domiciled in a particular state, without objective facts consistent with that claim, is insufficient to establish domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal because the plaintiff, despite having an opportunity to submit supporting materials, failed to provide evidence substantiating Ohio domicile, and the district court could resolve the jurisdictional dispute on the written record without holding an evidentiary hearing.


Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 457 F.2d 1320 (3d Cir. 1972)