Jacobs v. Salt Lake City International Airport

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: May 7, 2025
• Docket: 25-4024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-4024 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 7, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ERIKA JACOBS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-4024 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-00299-JNP) SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL (D. Utah) AIRPORT,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before EID, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.** _________________________________

Plaintiff-Appellant, Erika Jacobs, appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing her state-law personal injury claim. Jacobs v. Salt Lake City Int’l Airport,

No. 2:24-cv-00299, 2025 WL 605622 (D. Utah Feb. 25, 2025). On appeal,

Ms. Jacobs argues that the district court wrongly dismissed her claim for failure to

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellate Case: 25-4024 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2025 Page: 2

establish diversity jurisdiction. Aplt. Br. at 3–4. She also argues the merits of her

claim. Id. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Our review of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is de novo.

Lindstrom v. United States, 510 F.3d 1191, 1193 (10th Cir. 2007). The party

asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the

evidence. Id. “Congress has authorized the federal district courts to exercise

jurisdiction over certain cases between citizens of different states.” Middleton v.

Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A person

is a citizen of a state if they are “domiciled” in that state. Middleton, 749 F.3d

at 1200. “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there and

intends to remain there indefinitely.” Id.

Here, the district court dismissed Ms. Jacobs’s claim because she failed to

allege her domicile despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. I R. 60–62.1

The district court observed that, to establish diversity, Ms. Jacobs must show that she

is not domiciled in Utah. Id. at 61. The magistrate judge repeatedly instructed

Ms. Jacobs on how to properly allege her domicile, permitted her to amend her

complaint, issued an order specifically directing her to allege her domicile, and set a

hearing to that effect. Id. at 56. But at every turn, Ms. Jacobs alleged only that she

1 Although Ms. Jacobs’s notice of appeal does not comply with the requirement that she designate the judgment from which appeal is taken, we construe this designation requirement liberally and interpret her appeal as challenging the judgment of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); Nolan v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 973 F.2d 843, 846 (10th Cir. 1992). 2 Appellate Case: 25-4024 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2025 Page: 3

resides in Nebraska, and she refused to allege that she intended to remain there

indefinitely. Id. at 60–62. Moreover, she failed to appear at the hearing, instead

filing a motion to disqualify the magistrate judge. Id. at 39, 53.

On appeal, Ms. Jacobs argues that she “does not need to be a citizen of

Salt Lake City[,] Utah and or confined to any state as a mandate until the case has

ended in trial.” Aplt. Br. at 3. But the district court in no way “confined” Ms. Jacobs

to Nebraska until the end of her case by requiring her to allege her intent to remain

there. It is well established that jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship

depends upon the facts as they existed at the time of filing. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas

Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570–71 (2004). And after the district court has been

vested with diversity jurisdiction, that jurisdiction “cannot be ousted by subsequent

events.” Id. at 583; see also Johnson v. Cordell Nat. Bank, 421 F.2d 1310, 1311

(10th Cir. 1970) (quotations omitted). Thus, the district court did not err by requiring

Ms. Jacobs to allege her residence and intent to remain in Nebraska, for the purposes

of establishing diversity jurisdiction. To the extent that Ms. Jacobs argues that the

district court erroneously concentrated on its jurisdiction rather than the merits of her

case, Aplt. Br. at 4, a district court must dismiss an action if it “determines at any

time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

3 Appellate Case: 25-4024 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2025 Page: 4

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge