Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Gordon v. Steele

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiversity JurisdictionDomicilediversity jurisdictiondomicilecitizenshipstudent domiciletime-of-filing rule

Facts

Plaintiff Susan Gordon sued two physicians and an osteopathic hospital in Erie County, Pennsylvania for alleged malpractice arising from treatment of a wrist injury. Before August 9, 1972, she lived with her parents in Erie, Pennsylvania, but then enrolled at Ricks College in Rexburg, Idaho and rented an apartment there, which she retained continuously. At the time suit was filed on April 10, 1973, she was over 18 years old. Evidence pointed both ways: college records and a Pennsylvania driver's license connected her to Pennsylvania, while her retained Idaho apartment, Idaho Blue Cross subscription, and stated intent not to return to Pennsylvania supported Idaho domicile.

Issue

At the time the complaint was filed, was plaintiff a citizen of Idaho rather than Pennsylvania for purposes of diversity jurisdiction? More specifically, can an emancipated college student acquire a new domicile in the college state by residing there and intending to remain there for an indefinite period?

Rule

Citizenship for diversity purposes is determined at the time the action is commenced. A new domicile is acquired when residence in the new state is coupled with intent to make that state one's home for an indefinite period of time; intent to remain permanently is not required, and a vague possibility of later going elsewhere or returning to the former state does not defeat acquisition of the new domicile. When diversity is challenged, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing jurisdiction by convincing evidence.

🔒

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.

Maya Lin grew up in Ohio and moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico in January, renting a year-round apartment and telling friends she expected to stay there for the foreseeable future. She filed a negligence action in federal court against Ohio defendants in March. In June, after losing her job, she moved back to Ohio to live with her parents.

Assuming the defendants challenge diversity jurisdiction, which is the best answer?

Explanation. Citizenship for diversity purposes is determined when the action is commenced. A later move back to the former state does not matter unless it shows the earlier intent to make the new state home never existed. If Maya had physical residence in New Mexico and intended to remain there for an indefinite period when she filed, jurisdiction exists despite her later return. (Derived from Gordon v. Steele (n.d.).)