Sheenan v. Gustafson
967 F.2d 1214 (8th Cir. 1992)
- Plaintiff claims he had an oral agreement with defendant for proceeds of the sale of the Tropicana Hotel and Casino.
- Plaintiff files action for breach of oral contract in Minnesota federal court
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- Motion granted because plaintiff did not meet burden of proving that defendant was citizen of Minnesota
- Plaintiff appeals
Contentions of parties:
Plaintiff: Defendant is a citizen of Minnesota
Whether a Minnesota federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a defendant who has a presence in both Nevada and Minnesota.
A Minnesota federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a defendant who has a presence in both Nevada and Minnesota only if there is a (1) presence in Minnesota and (2) defendant has indefinite plans to remain in Minnesota.
Two-Part test for domicile:
(2) Intention to remain indefinitely
* Evidence of Minnesota domicile:
- Bank and investment accounts in state since 1991
- Ownership of property in state by corp. controlled by defendant
- Condominium address used in monthly report to probation officer
- Use of corp. vehicles while in state
- Secretary and office in Minneapolis (checks for messages & mail)
- Location of physician, dentist, and attorney
- Use of Minn. bank accounts for Nevada business
* Evidence of Nevada domicile:
- Nevada driver’s license since 1973
- Personal vehicles registered in the state
- Filing Minn. tax returns as non-resident since 1974, with permanent Nevada address
- Nevada voter’s registration since 1973
- Passport shows valid Nevada address
- Will stated permanent address in Nevada
- Parent’s address in Nevada as permanent address
- Construction of new home in Nevada.