## Facts

- ConnectU LLC, formed by Harvard students, sued Mark Zuckerberg and TheFacebook, Inc., alleging misconduct connected to the creation of a competing social-networking site.
- The original complaint (filed September 2, 2004, in the District of Massachusetts) invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction solely under diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
- ConnectU’s members were New York citizens; diversity jurisdiction therefore depended on Zuckerberg being domiciled in a state other than New York on September 2, 2004.
- Zuckerberg was raised in New York, attended Harvard in Massachusetts, and in summer 2004 spent time in New York before going to California to work on Facebook while subletting housing with friends and bringing limited possessions.
- Zuckerberg obtained a leave of absence from Harvard and moved belongings from Harvard to New York late in the summer.
- Facebook was incorporated in California in July 2004; a California server contract in August 2004 listed Zuckerberg’s New York address.
- Through 2004–2006, Zuckerberg continued to use a New York permanent address and maintained New York banking and identification ties (including voter registration and driver’s license); he did not register/insure a car in California until December 2004.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing lack of complete diversity because Zuckerberg remained a New York citizen.
- After an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate judge, the district court concluded Zuckerberg was still domiciled in New York on the filing date and dismissed.
- On appeal, the First Circuit accepted the domicile finding but reversed because an amended complaint filed as of right added a federal-question basis for jurisdiction that required consideration.

## Issues

1. Whether ConnectU carried its burden to show that Zuckerberg changed domicile from New York to California (or another state) by September 2, 2004, creating complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
2. On appeal, whether an amended complaint filed as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) adding federal-question allegations must be considered before dismissing for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The district court held Zuckerberg remained a New York domiciliary on September 2, 2004 because the evidence did not show a settled intent to remain in California indefinitely.
- Because ConnectU’s members were New York citizens, complete diversity was lacking; the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The First Circuit reversed and remanded on other grounds, holding the district court should have considered the amended complaint’s federal-question allegations as a basis for federal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: no plaintiff may share state citizenship with any defendant. (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1))
- The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it.
- A person’s domicile is the individual’s true, fixed home and principal establishment, requiring (1) physical presence and (2) intent to remain indefinitely.
- An established domicile is presumed to continue until a new domicile is acquired; evidence must show abandonment of the old domicile and formation of a bona fide intent to remain in the new state.
- An amended complaint filed as of right that changes the jurisdictional basis from diversity to federal question must be given full consideration and may supply a valid basis for subject-matter jurisdiction on remand.

## Conclusion

The district court dismissed for lack of diversity because Zuckerberg’s New York domicile had not changed by the filing date, but the First Circuit remanded because an as-of-right amended complaint alleging federal-question jurisdiction could provide an independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.


ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg, 482 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Mass. 2007), rev'd on other grounds, 522 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2008)