Facts of Gordon v. Steele
On February 25, 1972, Susan Gordon sustained a wrist injury. She was treated by the defendant physicians in Pennsylvania and alleged that their malpractice resulted in ongoing pain and disability in her wrist. At the time of the injury, both Gordon and the defendants were residents of Pennsylvania.
On August 9, 1972, Gordon moved to Idaho to attend college. She rented an apartment there and did not sublet it to anyone else. She obtained insurance in Idaho and enrolled in her courses.
Although Gordon kept certain connections to Pennsylvania—such as a Pennsylvania driver’s license, bank accounts, and occasional returns to visit and work—she expressed a clear intention not to live in Pennsylvania in the foreseeable future. She also stated that she wished to marry within her Mormon faith, which she believed was more likely outside of Pennsylvania.
Gordon was an adult at the time of her move, legally capable of establishing her own domicile. Her actions and statements reflected an intent to remain in Idaho indefinitely, even though she acknowledged the possibility of future relocation, which the court noted does not undermine the establishment of a new domicile.
Issue
For the purpose of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, had Susan Gordon established a new domicile in Idaho at the time she filed her federal malpractice suit, thereby making her a citizen of Idaho and creating diversity between her and the Pennsylvania defendants?
Rule of Law
The determination of diversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of the parties at the time the lawsuit is filed. Citizenship is established by a party’s domicile, which requires:
- Physical presence in the new location, and
- Intent to remain indefinitely in that location.
The possibility of moving in the future or returning to a former domicile does not prevent a person from acquiring a new domicile. A student who has reached the age of majority may establish a domicile independent of their parents’ residence.
Relevant authority includes 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and case law such as Gallagher v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., which emphasizes that “permanent” intent is not required—only an intent to remain indefinitely.
Reasoning in Gordon v. Steele
In Gordon v. Steele, the court analyzed Gordon’s physical presence and intent to remain in Idaho. It found that she had moved there for college, rented her own apartment, and obtained local insurance, demonstrating her physical connection to the state.
The court placed particular weight on Gordon’s intent. She had clearly stated she did not plan to return to Pennsylvania in the foreseeable future. Her reasoning was influenced by her personal and religious aspirations, including her desire to marry within her faith, which she believed would be more likely to occur outside Pennsylvania.
Although Gordon maintained certain formal ties to Pennsylvania—such as her driver’s license, bank accounts, and occasional visits—these connections did not outweigh her expressed intent and concrete steps toward making Idaho her home. The court recognized that such residual ties are common and not sufficient to disprove a change in domicile.
The court also noted that as an emancipated 18-year-old adult, Gordon had the legal capacity to choose her own domicile. Her decision to establish herself in Idaho was therefore not dependent on her parents’ residence in Pennsylvania.
Applying the principle that domicile is determined by physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely, the court found that Gordon had satisfied both elements. The fact that she might relocate in the future did not defeat her present intent to make Idaho her home for an indefinite period.
Gordon v. Steele Judgment
Yes. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Susan Gordon was a citizen of Idaho at the time she filed her malpractice lawsuit.
Conclusion
Gordon v. Steele reinforces the principle that citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes depends on a person’s domicile at the time of filing the lawsuit, and that domicile is established through both physical presence and intent to remain indefinitely. Susan Gordon’s move to Idaho, her establishment of a residence there, her integration into the community, and her stated plans for the future were sufficient to establish Idaho as her domicile.