Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Padilla-Mangual v. Pavia Hospital

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionDomicile28 U.S.C. § 1332Rule 12(b)(1)diversity jurisdictiondomicile

Facts

Padilla moved to Jacksonville, Florida on December 31, 2004 for medical treatment and remained there continuously through the filing of this federal suit on January 30, 2006, returning to Puerto Rico only later for the evidentiary hearing. He decided by mid-2005 to stay in Florida, refused his mother's requests to return to Puerto Rico, brought his dog to Florida, obtained a Florida driver's license, and later registered and voted in Florida. Although he lacked a job, bank account, lease, or property in his own name, the court found those omissions explained by his disability, depression, and financial dependence on his mother. The Puerto Rico address used in prior state-court complaints was found to have been copied in by error.

Issue

Whether Padilla was domiciled in Florida, rather than Puerto Rico, when he filed the federal complaint, such that complete diversity existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. More specifically, the question was whether he had both physical presence in Florida and an intent to remain there indefinitely at the time of filing.

Rule

The party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. For diversity jurisdiction, citizenship equals domicile, and domicile exists where a person is physically present and intends to remain indefinitely; courts evaluate domicile under the totality of the evidence, considering factors such as voter registration, location of property, driver's license, bank accounts, club or religious membership, and employment. The key inquiry is domicile at the time suit is filed, though later events may bear on the sincerity of the earlier professed intent.

🔒

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.

Lena Ortiz lived in New Mexico but moved to Phoenix, Arizona on March 1 for ongoing medical treatment. She remained continuously in Phoenix, obtained an Arizona driver's license on March 20, told relatives by April she would not move back, and filed a negligence action in federal court against a New Mexico clinic on May 10; six months later she registered to vote in Arizona.

If the clinic moves to dismiss for lack of diversity, what is the strongest basis for finding Lena was an Arizona citizen when she filed suit?

Explanation. Citizenship for diversity turns on domicile at the time suit is filed. Domicile requires physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely, assessed under the totality of the evidence. Later events do not create diversity after filing, but they may bear on the sincerity of the earlier professed intent. Here, Lena's continuous presence, driver's license, and refusal to return support Arizona domicile at filing; later voter registration only corroborates that conclusion.