489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)
Jean Paul Mas, a citizen of France, and Judy Mas were married at her home in Jackson, Mississippi.1 Prior to their marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Mas were graduate assistants, pursuing coursework as well as performing teaching duties, for approximately nine months and one year, respectively, at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.2
Shortly after their marriage, the couple returned to Baton Rouge to resume their duties as graduate assistants at LSU and remained there for approximately two more years.3 They subsequently moved to Park Ridge, Illinois, but at the time of trial it was their intention to return to Baton Rouge while Mr. Mas finished his studies for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, though they were undecided as to where they would reside after that.4
Upon their return to Baton Rouge after their marriage, the Mases rented an apartment from Oliver H. Perry, a citizen of Louisiana.5 This case arises from a jury verdict awarding $5,000 to Mr. Mas and $15,000 to Mrs. Mas for damages resulting from the discovery that their bedroom and bathroom contained two-way mirrors and that they had been watched through them by Perry during three of the first four months of their marriage.6
At the close of the plaintiffs' case at trial, Perry made an oral motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.7 The district court denied the motion. The appeal to the Fifth Circuit challenges the final judgment solely on jurisdictional grounds. Appellant contends that the appellees failed to prove diversity of citizenship among the parties and that the requisite jurisdictional amount is lacking with respect to Mr. Mas.8
Whether Mrs. Mas remained a domiciliary of Mississippi for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 after her marriage to a French citizen?9
To be a citizen of a State within the meaning of section 1332, a natural person must be both a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of that State.10 For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.11 A person’s domicile is the place of his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.12 A change of domicile may be effected only by a combination of two elements: (a) taking up residence in a different domicile with (b) the intention to remain there.13 It is generally the case that the domicile of the wife is deemed to be that of her husband.14 However, this concept does not extend to the situation in which the husband is a citizen of a foreign state but resides in the United States.15 An American woman is not deemed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage to an alien.16 Similarly, for diversity purposes a woman does not have her domicile or State citizenship changed solely by reason of her marriage to an alien.17
Yes. Mrs. Mas was a domiciliary of Mississippi at the time of her marriage.18 Her year in Louisiana prior to her marriage did not disturb her Mississippi domicile.19 The time she and her husband spent at LSU after their marriage also did not disturb it because she was a graduate assistant at LSU and lacked the requisite intention to remain in Louisiana.20 The marriage to Mr. Mas, a citizen of France, did not change her domicile for diversity purposes.21
Mrs. Mas remained a domiciliary of Mississippi for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.22
Whether Mr. Mas established that the amount in controversy on his claim exceeded $10,000 at the time the complaint was filed?23
It is well settled that the amount in controversy is determined by the amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith.24 Federal jurisdiction is not lost because a judgment of less than the jurisdictional amount is awarded.25 It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.26 The inability of the plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction.27
Yes. In their complaint Mr. and Mrs. Mas alleged that they had each been damaged in the amount of $100,000.28 Mr. Mas ultimately recovered $5,000.29 Having heard the evidence presented at the trial, the district court concluded that the appellees properly met the requirements of section 1332 with respect to jurisdictional amount.30 Upon examination of the record in this case, the requisite amount was in controversy.31
Mr. Mas established that the amount in controversy on his claim exceeded $10,000 at the time the complaint was filed.32
Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over both claims on the basis of diversity of citizenship?33
Under section 1332(a)(2), the federal judicial power extends to the claim of Mr. Mas, a citizen of France, against the appellant, a citizen of Louisiana.34 Since Mrs. Mas is a citizen of Mississippi for diversity purposes, the district court also properly had jurisdiction under section 1332(a)(1) of her claim.35 Complete diversity of parties is required in order that diversity jurisdiction obtain.36
Yes. The power of the federal district court to entertain the claims of appellees in this case stands on two separate legs of diversity jurisdiction. One is a claim by an alien against a State citizen. The other is an action between citizens of different States. The claims of Mr. and Mrs. Mas arise from the same operative facts. There was almost complete interdependence between their claims with respect to the proof required and the issues raised at trial.3738
The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over both claims on the basis of diversity of citizenship.39