zot1 wrote:Nelson wrote:Pickled wrote:CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE DEFEND THIS ABSURDITY TO ME??????????????????????????????????????????????????
A customer who was seriously injured in an accident on a retailer’s premises filed a complaint in a federal district court in State A. The complaint alleged in good faith that the customer was entitled to damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy requirement. At the time of the accident, which took place in State C, the customer and the retailer were citizens of State C. Prior to filing suit, the customer changed her domicile to State A for the sole purpose of being able to bring this action in federal court. After filing an answer, the retailer filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Should the court grant this motion?
D) No, because the customer and retailer were citizens of different states when the customer commenced the action.
Answer choice D is correct. Subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship exists with respect to this action. At the time of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff was a citizen of a different state (i.e., State A) than the defendant (i.e., State C) and the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the plaintiff’s sole purpose in becoming a citizen of State A was to be able to meet the diversity requirement for bringing this action in federal court, the plaintiff, as a domiciliary of State A, is a citizen of a different state than the defendant-retailer. A party may voluntarily change state citizenship after the accrual of a cause of action but before the commencement of a lawsuit, and therefore establish or defeat diversity jurisdiction, so long as the change is not a sham. That is, if the change of domicile is intended to be permanent--even if the sole motivation is to create diversity--the change is permissible.
Yeah, we went through this exact question earlier in this thread. It's just a bad question.
So the thing in the outline is that you can't say you've moved but you haven't (you have a po box instead of physical address). As long as you have physically moved by the time of filing, it's okay.
^this. The move can't be "fake." If you actually move and don't plan to move right back after the litigation, then it's ok. You have to have intent to permanently stay somewhere in order to change domicile.
Does anyone else feel like the answers in the tort questions are particularly tricky? I read a question, know what the answer is before I head to the choices, and then all the choices are written in such a way that it's very difficult to figure out which one means the answer you think is correct...