Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Civil Procedure

First Class Briefs



Case Name, Citation, and Author Gordon V Steele 376 F. Supp 575 ( W.D. Pa 1974)

Procedural History Gordon filed diversity suit in federal district court of western
Pennsylvania. The defense moved to dismiss the suit, by claiming that the diversity case
could not be made because she still held residence with her parents in Erie, PA even
though she attended school in Idaho.

Facts the plaintiff was raised in Erie, PA but attended college in Idaho she only
returned back to PA to address legal matters and for medical treatment.

Issue Is domicile established for diversity purposes under 28 USC 1332 when a party
rents an apartment in that state, lives in that state at the time suit is brought, expresses a
desire not to return to the state of former domicile, and still holds a drivers license issued
by the former state of domicile?

Holding & Rule Motion to dismiss by defense was denied since the plaintiff rented an
apartment in Idaho and although she may go elsewhere or return to Pennsylvania upon
completion of school. Her desire to stay there currently is sufficient for acquiring
domicile.

Reasoning/Rationale When a party rents an apartment and states there desire to remain
in that location even if in the future that changes it does not defeat the acquisition of new
domicile. Additionally her acquisition of an apartment in Idaho establishes her Domicile
there .Ruling reached based on Gallagher v PTC 185 F. 2D 543 (3d Cir. 1950).

Disposition or Judgment Motion to Dismiss denied

Notes Domicile- a state where one establishes permanent residence
Diversity Jurisdiction- A civil procedure case where a court hears a case from
parties, which are diverse in citizenship, which means that they come from different
locations (different countries or states).
In order to establish a diversity jurisdiction case one needs to have parties that live in
different states.

Case Name, Citation, and Author Mas V Perry 489 F.2d 1396 ( 5
th
cir. 1974)

Procedural History Mr Mas and Mrs mas filed a diversity suit in federal district court
in Louisiana federal court. Perrys Attorney attempted to dismiss the motion on the
grounds that the Mases were domicil in Louisiana motion was denied, the defendants
appealed it.

Facts- The plaintiffs lived in an apartment in Baton Rouge that the defendant was the
landlord of during there first few months of marriage. They discovered that the landlord
had been spying on them with two way mirrors.

Issue What is needed to change place of Domicile?

Holding & Rule ruling was affirmed two things are necessary to determine domicile
aking up residence in a different domicile with the intention to remain there. A person
remains a domicile of one place until that person has adopted a new domicile through
physical presence and intent to remain. A persons residence is not neccesarily the state
of domicile for the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction

Reasoning/Rationale A persons residence is not necessarily the state of domicile for
the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Mas also can establish diversity
jurisdiction because he is not an Alien and it does not matter if he lives in the United
States, since he is still considered an alien until he has American citizenship.



Disposition or Judgment Judgement for Mas affirmed

Notes This ruling was also significant because it established that an American woman
is not deemed to lose her citizenship even though she married an alien. For diversity
purposes a woman does not have her domicile or state citizenship changed because of
her marriage to an alien
- for domicile purposes one must take residence in a different domicile with the intent of
staying there.