Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
United States District Court for the Western District of New York - 772 F. Supp.2d 453, 772 F. Supp. 2d 453
tl;dr:
Determining an individual's residency is dependent upon a multi-factor test, which establishes their intent to remain domiciled in a state.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 2011 case Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, the US District Court for the Western District of New York examined a breach of contract and ownership dispute concerning Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook originally transferred the case from the New York State Supreme Court to a federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction. However, plaintiff Paul Ceglia attempted to return it to state court, arguing that both he and Zuckerberg were New York residents.
The central issue was whether diversity jurisdiction applied. The court decided it did because Zuckerberg was a California resident, not a New York one, at the time of the move. To establish diversity jurisdiction, the parties must have different citizenship and an amount in controversy over $75,000. Citizenship here depends on one's domicile or state of permanent residence, determined through factors like living address, voter registration, driver's license, tax payments, business activities, and intent.
The court used a multi-factor test and determined that Zuckerberg's domicile had changed from New York to California in 2004 and hadn't switched back. This case is significant because it demonstrates how courts interpret diversity jurisdiction, apply multi-factor tests to figure out domicile, and resolve disputes over citizenship when parties have ties to multiple states. Judge Arcara wrote the opinion in this recent federal civil procedure case.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against the defendants in New York State Supreme Court, claiming an 84% interest in Facebook. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff and Zuckerberg were not domiciled in the same state. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that both parties were domiciled in New York. The court found that diversity jurisdiction existed because Zuckerberg was domiciled in California. The plaintiff seeks remand due to a lack of diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity between the parties. Citizenship for diversity purposes is based on domicile, which is the place where a person has their true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which they intend to return. To change domicile, two elements are required: residence in a new domicile and the intention to remain there indefinitely. The burden of proving a change in domicile is on the person asserting it and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.