## Facts

- Gloria Washington, born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, had long lived in Texas, where she owned a home and worked for a Texas employer.
- Her employer assigned her to work at HOVENSA LLC’s oil refinery in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
- During the assignment, Washington rented and furnished an apartment in St. Croix and received a daily per diem for living expenses.
- She maintained social and family connections in the Virgin Islands and developed a romantic relationship there.
- She retained substantial Texas ties, including a Texas driver’s license, Texas vehicle registration, a Texas bank account, Texas phone arrangements, a Texas primary physician (whom she visited annually), and her Texas home (occupied by her daughter while Washington was away).
- On April 5, 2006, Washington alleged she was injured on Hovensa’s property when sandblasting operations by Triangle Construction and Maintenance, Inc. shattered her vehicle’s window.
- On July 24, 2006, Washington sued Hovensa and Triangle in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for negligence, invoking diversity jurisdiction and asserting she was a Texas citizen while defendants were Virgin Islands citizens.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Washington was domiciled in the Virgin Islands when the complaint was filed.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington was domiciled in Texas or the U.S. Virgin Islands when she filed suit, determining whether complete diversity existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Whether a court may discount a party’s declaration of intent to return to a prior domicile as “self-serving” rather than weighing it with objective indicia.
3. Whether describing a work assignment as “indefinite” establishes intent to remain in the forum indefinitely for domicile purposes.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit vacated the order dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded.
- It held the district court erred in its domicile determination by misapplying the legal standard governing intent and by treating the “indefinite” character of Washington’s assignment as effectively dispositive.
- It held the district court erred by refusing to consider Washington’s declaration of intent to return to Texas solely because it was “self-serving.”
- It concluded the district court’s finding that Washington’s business, domestic, and social life was centered in St. Croix was clearly erroneous on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- For diversity jurisdiction, citizenship is determined by domicile, which requires physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely; an established domicile is presumed to continue until a new one is acquired.
- A person may have multiple residences but only one domicile at a time; domicile turns on the person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and the place to which the person intends to return.
- Intent is a required element of domicile and may be shown by both objective indicators and the party’s own statements; a declaration about intent is not excludable merely because it favors the declarant.
- Uncertainty about the length of a temporary work assignment (including describing it as “indefinite”) is not, by itself, proof of intent to abandon a prior domicile and remain in the new location indefinitely.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the district court improperly assessed domicile by overreading deposition testimony about an “indefinite” assignment and by disregarding evidence of intent as “self-serving,” vacated the dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction, and remanded for further proceedings.


Washington v. HOVENSA LLC, 652 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2011)