## Facts

- Susan E. Gordon, formerly living with her parents in Erie, Pennsylvania, injured her wrist on February 25, 1972 and received treatment from Pennsylvania physicians and a Pennsylvania hospital.
- Gordon alleged negligent diagnosis and treatment causing continuing pain and partial disability of her wrist and right hand.
- Gordon was born November 20, 1953; she was 18 when the claim arose and 19 when she filed suit.
- On August 9, 1972, Gordon moved to Rexburg, Idaho to attend college, rented an apartment there, and retained it year-round without subletting during trips away.
- On April 10, 1973, Gordon filed a federal medical malpractice action in the Western District of Pennsylvania invoking diversity jurisdiction, alleging she was a citizen of Idaho and defendants were citizens of Pennsylvania.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Gordon remained domiciled in Pennsylvania.
- Evidence of Pennsylvania ties included use of her Erie address in school records, a Pennsylvania driver’s license, an Erie bank account, and returning to Erie for holidays and summer work.
- Evidence supporting Idaho domicile included maintaining an Idaho apartment, obtaining insurance in Idaho, statements of intent not to return to Pennsylvania, and personal/religious plans consistent with remaining in the western United States.

## Issues

1. Whether, at the time the complaint was filed, Gordon was domiciled in Idaho rather than Pennsylvania so that complete diversity existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court held Gordon was a citizen of Idaho when the action commenced and defendants were citizens of Pennsylvania, establishing complete diversity.
- The court concluded it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity citizenship is determined as of the time the lawsuit is filed.
- The party invoking diversity jurisdiction bears the burden to prove diverse citizenship by convincing evidence.
- Domicile requires physical presence in a state plus intent to remain there at least for the time being.
- A person may acquire a new domicile even if there is a possibility of moving again later or returning to a prior domicile.
- College attendance does not automatically fix domicile, and reduced age-of-majority/emancipation statutes support treating an 18-year-old as capable of forming an independent domicile apart from parents.

## Conclusion

Because Gordon had physically established residence in Idaho and demonstrated an intent to make Idaho her home at the time she filed suit, the court found she was domiciled in Idaho, complete diversity existed, and the federal action could proceed.


Gordon v. Steele, 376 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Pa. 1974)