Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Aponte-Davila v. Municipality of Caguas

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2016 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiversity JurisdictionDomicilesubject-matter jurisdictiondiversitydomicilecitizenshipresidence

Facts

Before his 2009 accident, Aponte-Dávila had been based in Laredo, Texas as an interstate truck driver, held a Texas commercial driver's license, and filed federal tax returns using his Texas address. After he was injured while in Puerto Rico, he spent substantial time there obtaining medical treatment and staying with family or his then-wife, and on several Puerto Rico-related forms he listed Puerto Rico addresses; he also obtained a Puerto Rico driver's license and other local benefits. He nevertheless continued returning to Texas for work, filed his federal taxes from Texas, never filed Puerto Rico personal income tax returns, and in late April 2013 returned to Laredo, where he sought work and obtained a medical certificate as part of renewing his Texas commercial driver's license on May 6, 2013. He filed this suit on May 9, 2013, while asserting that he was physically present in Texas and intending to continue residing and working there.

Issue

Whether Aponte-Dávila was domiciled in Texas or Puerto Rico on May 9, 2013, when he filed suit, for purposes of complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. More specifically, the question was whether his stays in Puerto Rico for medical treatment and his representations of Puerto Rico residence were sufficient to show that he abandoned his Texas domicile and acquired a Puerto Rico domicile.

Rule

For diversity purposes, a person is a citizen of the state of his domicile. Domicile requires both physical presence and intent to make the place one's home, and once established it persists until a new domicile is acquired. Courts assess domicile by looking to multiple factors, including residence, voting, property, bank accounts, employment, driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and taxes; no single factor is dispositive, and the substantive nature of the contacts matters more than their number. Residence, especially when tied to obtaining medical treatment, does not by itself establish a change of domicile.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Calder had lived and worked as a radiology technician in Tulsa, Oklahoma for six years, filed her federal taxes from Tulsa, and kept her Oklahoma bank account. After a spinal injury, she spent eight months in San Juan, Puerto Rico receiving treatment while staying with her sister, listed the San Juan address on hospital and disability-benefit forms, and obtained a Puerto Rico parking placard. Two weeks before filing a negligence suit in federal court against Puerto Rico defendants, she returned to Tulsa to resume work and stayed with a friend there.

If the defendants challenge diversity jurisdiction, which is the strongest conclusion about Nina’s citizenship at filing?

Explanation. For diversity, citizenship turns on domicile, not mere residence. Domicile requires physical presence plus intent to make the place one’s home, and an existing domicile persists until a new one is acquired. The majority stressed that residence in a jurisdiction for medical treatment, along with related forms listing a local address, is weak evidence of intent to remain indefinitely. Nina’s continuing Oklahoma ties and return there before filing make Oklahoma the strongest answer.