Case BriefCiv Pro unit B1b1/17/15Identity of CaseGordon v. Steele, 376 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Pa. 1974)Page 42 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryGordon, whose parents live in Pennsylvania but who is also a college student living in Ohio, sues her doctors, based in Pennsylvania, for medical malpractice, in Federal court. Defendant motions for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, claiming Gordon is a Pennsylvania resident (no diversity jurisdiction).TC rules that Gordon is a citizen of Ohio for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Statement of the IssueWhether a college student who does not intend to return to her parent’s house has acquired a new domicile for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. HoldingUnder the domicile test, a person acquires a new domicile when they leave their old one, establish a place of residence where they intend to live indefinitely, and have no intention of returning to the old domicile to live. (note—some jurisdictions indefinitely is replaced with “permanently”). ReasoningCourt listened to arguments on both sides, but the intent is what makes it a domicile. Plaintiff has a very easy argument. Evaluation Low standard for getting into
View Full Document
Unlocking...