Mas v. Perry is a significant decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1974 that deals with the question of federal diversity jurisdiction. The case is often cited in civil procedure courses because it clarifies the requirements for determining citizenship and domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
At its core, the case illustrates how federal courts apply the rules of diversity when one party is a foreign citizen, the other is a citizen of a U.S. state, and the defendant is a citizen of a different state. The court was asked to decide whether the federal district court properly exercised jurisdiction despite the defendant’s objection.
Citation
Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974).
Also reported as Mas v. Perry, 492 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir. 1974).
Facts of Mas v. Perry Case
Jean Paul Mas, a citizen of France, and his wife, Judy Mas, a citizen of Mississippi, were married in Jackson, Mississippi. Both were graduate assistants at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, before and after their marriage. While living in Baton Rouge, they rented an apartment from Oliver H. Perry, a citizen of Louisiana.
During their stay, the couple discovered that the apartment contained “two-way” mirrors in both the bedroom and bathroom. Through these mirrors, Perry had secretly observed them during the early months of their marriage. Shocked by this invasion of privacy, Jean Paul and Judy Mas filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Louisiana, seeking $100,000 in damages.
At trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding $5,000 in damages to Mr. Mas and $15,000 in damages to Mrs. Mas. After the plaintiffs presented their case, Perry moved orally to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the federal court lacked authority to hear the matter. The district court denied the motion. Perry then appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Procedural History
- The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the federal district court in Louisiana.
- The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction after the plaintiffs’ case in chief.
- The district court denied the motion, and the trial proceeded.
- The jury awarded damages to both plaintiffs.
- The defendant appealed the judgment, renewing his jurisdictional arguments before the Court of Appeals.
Issues
- Whether the federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- Whether the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was satisfied.
Rule of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between:
- Citizens of different states, where the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (at that time; later amended to $75,000).
- Citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, citizenship is determined by domicile. A person’s domicile is their true, fixed, and permanent home — the place they intend to return to whenever absent. Complete diversity requires that no plaintiff share the same citizenship as any defendant.
Reasoning and Analysis in Mas v. Perry
The Court of Appeals, in reviewing the arguments, carefully analyzed the domiciles and citizenship of the parties:
- Judy Mas was a citizen of Mississippi by virtue of her domicile at the time of marriage. She had not changed her domicile to Louisiana merely because she resided there temporarily as a graduate assistant. Importantly, the court emphasized that marriage to an alien did not automatically transform her citizenship or domicile into something else. She remained a citizen of Mississippi for diversity purposes.
- Jean Paul Mas was a citizen of France. As an alien suing a citizen of Louisiana, his claim independently satisfied diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(2).
- Oliver Perry was a citizen of Louisiana, where he owned and rented out the apartment.
Thus, complete diversity was present because neither plaintiff shared Louisiana citizenship with the defendant. The court also rejected Perry’s argument that Judy Mas became a citizen or domiciliary of Louisiana due to her marriage to a foreign national. Such an argument, the court explained, was unsupported and would lead to illogical results.
On the question of the amount in controversy, the plaintiffs initially pleaded damages in good faith exceeding $10,000, the statutory minimum at the time. Although the final jury awards were less than the amount requested, that did not defeat jurisdiction. The requirement is satisfied if the amount claimed was made in good faith and was not legally certain to be less than the threshold when filed.
Accordingly, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
Mas v. Perry Judgment
The Fifth Circuit held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The diversity requirements were satisfied because:
- Judy Mas remained a citizen of Mississippi, maintaining her domicile there.
- Jean Paul Mas was a citizen of France, qualifying as an alien plaintiff.
- Oliver Perry was a citizen of Louisiana.
- The amount in controversy was properly pleaded in excess of $10,000.
Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals in Mas v. Perry upheld the district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed the principles of diversity jurisdiction by analyzing the citizenship of the parties, rejecting unsupported claims that marriage alters domicile or citizenship, and confirming the amount in controversy requirement. The outcome reinforced the federal courts’ ability to adjudicate disputes involving parties from different states and foreign nationals.
By clearly explaining the rules of domicile, citizenship, and jurisdictional thresholds, Mas v. Perry continues to serve as a teaching case for law students and a reference point for lawyers dealing with diversity jurisdiction issues. It provides a concrete example of how jurisdictional rules are applied in real disputes, ensuring clarity and fairness in access to federal courts.