## Facts

- Jane Doe alleged that her former swim coach, John Schwerzler, began a sexual relationship with her in 1998 when she was 13 and continued until 2004 when she was 19.
- Doe asserted claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and alleged other defendants and the school associated with the swim program failed to prevent or address the misconduct.
- Doe grew up in New Jersey; her parents continued to live in New Jersey at the time suit was filed.
- By the filing date (Aug. 1, 2006), Doe was a college student living off-campus in Kentucky.
- To show Kentucky citizenship for diversity, Doe relied on objective contacts including Kentucky voter registration, a Kentucky driver’s license (with surrender of her New Jersey license), a Kentucky lease and utilities, a Kentucky bank account, and Kentucky state tax payments.
- Doe also submitted statements from herself and others asserting she intended to remain in Kentucky after graduation.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the date the complaint was filed, Doe was domiciled in Kentucky rather than New Jersey so that complete diversity existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Whether Doe’s status as a college student meant she presumptively retained her prior New Jersey domicile despite her Kentucky ties.

## Decision

- The court treated the jurisdictional motion as a factual challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) and considered evidence beyond the pleadings.
- The court held Doe was domiciled in Kentucky when she filed suit.
- Because the moving defendants were New Jersey citizens, complete diversity existed.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The ruling addressed only jurisdiction and did not decide the merits of Doe’s substantive claims.

## Legal Principles

- For diversity purposes, citizenship equals domicile: physical presence in a state plus intent to remain there indefinitely.
- An established domicile is presumed to continue until a new domicile is shown; the party invoking diversity jurisdiction bears the burden to prove the asserted domicile.
- Courts assess domicile based on the totality of objective indicators and corroborated statements of intent, including voting registration, driver’s licensing, housing arrangements, banking, and tax payments.
- Although students often retain their prior domicile while attending school, the presumption can be rebutted by strong evidence that the student intends the school state to be a true home rather than a temporary educational location.
- Diversity jurisdiction is determined as of the time the complaint is filed.

## Conclusion

The court found that Doe’s concrete steps integrating her legal, residential, and financial life into Kentucky—supported by stated plans to remain there—were sufficient to establish Kentucky domicile at filing, defeating the non-Schwerzler defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) challenge and preserving federal diversity jurisdiction.


Jane Doe v. Schwerzler, No. 06-3529 (NLH), 2008 WL 1781986 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2008)