Gordon v Steele
376 F Supp 575 [1974]
Author:- Sam Biers

Relevant Facts: Pl Gordon was born 1953 and was 18 at the time the cause of action arose and 19 at the time it was filed.  The cause is against two doctors and a osteopathic hospital in PA.  All the Dfs are citizens of PA and the Pl prior to this action was a resident of PA.  Pl complains that she suffered an injury to her wrist in 1972 and there was a wrongful diagnosis, as to the existence of fractures by the Dfs. She claims they concluded there were no fractures, but she required additional surgery and treatment for the fractures.  Pl enrolled in Ricks College in ID in 1972 and has rented an apartment, w/o sublet, since.

Legal Issue(s): Whether a student attending a university in Idaho may have a cause of action filed  against physicians  residing in Pennsylvania dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction?

Court’s Holding: No.

Procedure: Pl filed an action against PA Dfs while residing in ID; Df moved to dismiss; DENIED.

Law or Rule(s): It is citizenship at the time of filing a suit which is controlling.  Where Pl is challenged on her claim of diversity, the burden is upon her to show by convincing evidence that the diversity jurisdiction exists.

Court Rationale: Traditionally determinations of domicile were a matter to be determined by the trier of fact.  Recently the Ct has held It is citizenship of the parties at the time the action is commenced which is controlling.  One domiciled in a state when a suit is begun is a citizen of that state within the meaning of the Constitution A3S2 The fact of residency must be coupled w/ a finding of intent to remain indefinitely.  The intent to remain is a subjective manifestation, where Pl’s own declarations are important, as were Pl’s explanations under deposition.  IF the new state is to be one’s home for an indefinite period of time, he has acquired a new domicile.  Finally, it is the intention of the Pl at the time of arrival that is important.  The Pl has rented an apartment in Rexsburg and the possibility of eventually going elsewhere or even returning to PA does not defeat the acquisition of a new domicile. We conclude upon the facts of this case considering the student’s connection w/ ID and her subjective intentions of not returning to PA in the foreseeable future and that she is a citizen of ID for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s Argument: Pl was residing in ID at the time of filing this actin and doesn’t intend on leaving in the near future.

Defendant’s Argument: The action arose in PA, PL was a resident of PA and is still a citizen of PA as evidenced by her driver’s license and her college records also indicate PA.