Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Mas v. Perry

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974 · Civil Procedure

diversity jurisdictiondomicilecitizenshiptwo-part test28 U.S.C. § 1332diversity jurisdictionalienage jurisdictiondomicile

Facts

Jean Paul Mas, a citizen of France, and Judy Mas were married in Mississippi and then returned to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where they served as graduate assistants at LSU and rented an apartment from Oliver Perry, a Louisiana citizen. They discovered that Perry had watched them through two-way mirrors in their bedroom and bathroom, and they sued in federal court. The defendant challenged jurisdiction, arguing that Mrs. Mas was not diverse from him and that Mr. Mas's claim did not meet the jurisdictional amount. At the time the complaint was filed, the Mases were living in Louisiana as students and had not formed an intent to remain there permanently.

Issue

Whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction over Mrs. Mas's claim by treating her as a citizen of Mississippi rather than Louisiana or France, and whether Mr. Mas's claim satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement even though he recovered only $5,000. More broadly, the court had to determine how domicile and citizenship are established for diversity purposes.

Rule

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a natural person is a citizen of a state only if the person is both a United States citizen and domiciled in that state. Citizenship for diversity purposes means domicile, not mere residence, and domicile changes only when a person takes up residence in a new place with the intention to remain there. Diversity is determined at the time the complaint is filed and is not defeated by later changes. A woman does not have her domicile or state citizenship changed solely by marriage to an alien. The amount in controversy is determined by the amount claimed in good faith, and jurisdiction is defeated only if it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.

🔒

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 Alvarez grew up in New Mexico and then moved to Colorado Springs for a three-year physical therapy program at Front Range Health Institute, where she rented an apartment and worked part-time as a lab assistant. While still enrolled, she sued Derek Sloan, a Colorado citizen, in federal court, alleging state-law claims and pleading that she was a "resident" of Colorado.

If Derek properly challenges diversity jurisdiction, which is the best result?

Explanation. For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile, not mere residence. A new domicile is acquired only by physical presence in a new place plus intent to remain there. On these facts, Nina's schooling and apartment in Colorado show residence, but unless she also had the intention to remain there, her prior domicile in New Mexico continues. The party invoking jurisdiction must prove diverse citizenship if challenged.