Mas v. Perry
489 F.2d 1396 (1974)
Author: Jim

Facts: Ps, husband & wife, brought an action against D, their landlord, in a federal court in Louisiana. Ps claim that D had set a two way mirror in their room and had watched them in action. Husband P was a French citizen and wife P was a resident of Mississippi. They were in Louisiana for education purposes and were not sure where they would settle after college. D was a citizen of Louisiana. D claims that Ps were Louisiana domiciliaries and the federal court had no subject matter jurisdiction.

Procedure: Jury verdict for the Ps

Issue: Does the federal court have diversity jurisdiction over the case?

Holding: Yes

Rationale: Domicile requires two things: Presence + Intent. Although Ps were present in Louisiana for educational purposes, they had not formed the intent to make Louisiana their permanent residence. Wife was still a resident of Mississippi and Husband was still a citizen of France. Therefore, there was complete diversity and the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Note: This case is a good example of how subject matter jurisdiction objection is not waivable. Even though the jury ruled in favor of Ps, but the subject matter jurisdiction issue was still raised on appeal.