Padilla-Mangual v. Pavia Hosp. - 516 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2008)

Rule:

Federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires that the matter in controversy be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332(a)(1). For purposes of diversity, a person is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled. A person's domicile is the place where he has his true, fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. Domicile is determined as of the time that the suit is filed.

Facts:

Plaintiff-appellant, Ryan Padilla-Mangual brought an action in the district court of Puerto Rico against defendant-appellees Pavia Hospital, and Dr. Miguel De La Cruz Castellanos and his conjugal partnership for damages stemming from allegedly negligent medical treatment. Padilla's complaint, which was premised on Puerto Rico's general tort statute, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141 (2004), alleged federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint alleged that Padilla was a resident of the State of Florida. In July 2006, defendant Dr. De La Cruz moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that diversity of citizenship was lacking. Defendant claimed that the date that plaintiff filed his complaint, that plaintiff was actually was a domiciliary of Puerto Rico, not Florida. In October 2006, defendant hospital moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims, also arguing that the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted both motions in a single order without holding an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff timely filed this appeal. 

Issue:

Did the district court err in granting both motions on the grounds that diversity of citizenship was lacking?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court reversed and remanded the case. The court held that while the district court's analysis could have been correct, as the court of appeals found that the record had not been adequately developed, it reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the question of diversity of citizenship. Because the court also found that only four days before the complaint was filed, plaintiff filed a complaint in Puerto Rico state court alleging himself to be a resident of Puerto Rico. He contended that such allegation was a clerical error and that he had permanently relocated to Florida. There was ordinarily a presumption of continuing domicile. However, plaintiff had offered several pieces of evidence to show that he had changed his domicile from Puerto Rico to Florida prior to filing his federal lawsuit. The district court found him not credible, though, because he largely had not taken the affirmative steps of opening a bank account or obtaining employment. But the court ruled that more was required before such a determination was made.