Mas v. Perry (1974)

a.       Facts- Π couple lived in Louisiana where they were graduate assistants at LSU. After marriage, they stayed in Louisiana for about 2 years. They then moved to IL, but moved back to Louisiana so husband could finish his PhD. While in Louisiana, Π’s landlord was spying on them, and they filed suit in federal Ct on diversity Jx basis.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for Π, Δ challenged diversity Jx, Ct of appeals held for Π

c.       Issue- Whether the Π fulfilled the basis for diversity Jx

d.      Holding- Yes, Π’s fulfilled the requirements for diversity Jx

e.       Rule- Diversity Jx exists where parties are “diverse” such that all are residents of different states AND where the amount in claim is over (exceeds) a certain amount (now $75k)

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      Even though Ms. Mas was living in Louisiana, her last place of domicile was with her parents in Mississippi. Therefore, her domicile is Miss.

                                                            ii.      Mr. Mas was a citizen of France with no intentions of living in Louisiana after school, although he didn’t know where he would live after. For the purposes of domicile, Mr. Mas resided in Louisiana, but held domicile in France

                                                          iii.      Amount of claim

1.      For purpose of diversity Jx, amount of claim is considered whatever the Π claims…the Δ CANNOT use a defense to lower the amount

2.      While Δ’s total amount cannot be combined to reach minimum amount, if one Δ has reached minimum then other Δs can join in suit

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Domicile:

1.      Physical presence- you have to actually be in the state

2.      Intention- you have to have the intention to live there forever

                                                            ii.      Diversity cases are concerned with State laws

                                                          iii.      Parties CANNOT concede subject matter Jx…unlike PJx (where litigants can “accept” PJx in a State)

1.      A Ct can sua sponte dismiss the case based on no subject matter Jx

                                                          iv.      Class action: at least one Δ must be diverse than the Π

                                                            v.      Diversity is established at the time of filing the complaint…NOT at the time of incident

                                                          vi.      Domicile of Corporation:

1.      Nerve Center test, OR           

a.       Focus on the place the activities of the corp are controlled and directed

b.      Location of direction, control and coordination

c.       Nerve center test is the majority

2.      Locus of operation

a.       Location of the corp’s actual physical operations

                                                        vii.      Punitive Damages:

1.      Punishment; conduct is egregious

2.      MUST be made in “good faith” for purpose of reaching amount in controversy

3.      4:1 ratio “should” be followed. Punitive:compensatory

                                                      viii.      Unincorporated associations:

1.      Don’t look to place of business, look to the domicile of the partners