Quick Summary
Jean Paul Mas (plaintiff), a citizen of France, and Judy Mas (plaintiff), a citizen of Mississippi, sued Oliver H. Perry (defendant), a citizen of Louisiana, for damages resulting from the discovery that their bedroom and bathroom contained “two-way” mirrors through which the defendant secretly monitored them.
The jury awarded Mr. Mas $5,000 and Mrs. Mas $15,000 in damages. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Facts of the Case
Jean Paul Mas and Judy Mas were graduate assistants at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, before and after their marriage. After their wedding, they rented an apartment from Oliver Perry upon returning to Baton Rouge.
During their time in the apartment, they discovered “two-way” mirrors in their bedroom and bathroom and realized that the defendant had been secretly monitoring them for several months.
Procedural History
- The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant in the district court seeking damages for invasion of privacy.
- The trial proceeded, and at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant made an oral motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the district court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding $5,000 to Mr. Mas and $15,000 to Mrs. Mas.
- The defendant appealed the judgment on jurisdictional grounds.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
- Whether the federal district court had jurisdiction over the case based on diversity of citizenship between the parties.
- Whether the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional requirement.
Rule of Law
For diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity of parties, where the citizenship of no party on one side is the same as any party on the other. Citizenship means domicile, a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home to which they intend to return whenever absent.
Reasoning and Analysis
The district court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case. Mrs. Mas, a citizen of Mississippi and domicile at the time of the marriage, was allowed to maintain her claim based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Mr. Mas, a citizen of France, was eligible for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) as an alien bringing a claim against a citizen of Louisiana.
The defendant’s argument that Mrs. Mas became a domiciliary and citizen of Louisiana due to her marriage to an alien is unsupported and would lead to illogical results.
The jurisdictional amount was also met as the claims were initially pleaded in good faith for amounts exceeding $10,000.
Conclusion
The district court had proper jurisdiction over the case based on diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount in controversy requirement was met. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Complete diversity of parties is required for diversity jurisdiction.
- Domicile determines citizenship for diversity purposes.
- A spouse’s domicile and citizenship are not automatically changed solely because of marriage to an alien.
- Jurisdictional amount is determined based on the amount claimed in good faith by the plaintiff.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What is the central principle for establishing diversity jurisdiction?
The central principle for establishing diversity jurisdiction is that there must be complete diversity of citizenship among the parties involved in a case. This means that no plaintiff shares the same state citizenship as any defendant.
- For example: If a lawsuit involves a plaintiff from New York and a defendant from New Jersey, it meets the complete diversity requirement.
Can the amount in controversy affect the choice of forum in diversity jurisdiction cases?
Yes, the amount in controversy can significantly influence the choice of forum in diversity jurisdiction cases. If a plaintiff is seeking a substantial sum, they may opt for a federal court with higher jurisdictional thresholds to ensure their case falls within the court’s jurisdiction.
- For example: If a plaintiff seeks $100,000 in damages, they might choose a federal court where the jurisdictional requirement is met.
References
Was this case brief helpful?