Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSD+
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Start your free 14-day trial today. Read as much content as you want during your trial, and you can cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 489 F.2d 1396
Contributed by 🤖LSDBot🤖
Bizarrely, Jean Paul and Judy Mas are awarded damages when they discover they are being watched through two-way mirrors in their apartment by their landlord, sparking a dispute over jurisdiction.
Issue
The issue is whether the federal court correctly exercised diversity jurisdiction in a case involving an international citizen (Mr. Mas), a Mississippi citizen (Mrs. Mas), and a Louisiana citizen (Perry).
Conclusion
LSD+ exclusive
Rule
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Analysis
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
Facts
- Fact Summary:
- In the case, the plaintiffs, Jean Paul and Judy Mas, won a case due to their landlord invading their privacy.
- Jean, a French citizen, and Judy, a citizen of Mississippi, brought the claim against the defendant, Oliver Perry from Louisiana.
- Perry challenged whether the case could be heard in federal court as it was based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Legal Analysis:
- The legal analysis for this case concerns federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 which needs complete diversity of parties.
- That means no party from one side should be a citizen of the same state as any party from the opposing side.
- Also, the party requesting federal jurisdiction must prove diverse citizenship and domicile, i.e., the fixed, permanent home to which the person intends to return.
- The domicile of a wife is often considered to be that of her husband, but not when the husband is a foreign resident living in the United States.
- It was settled that marrying a non-U.S. citizen doesn't alter a woman's original domicile or citizenship.
- The court also rejected Perry's claim that the amount in dispute didn't meet the jurisdictional minimum for diversity cases, affirming the rule that federal jurisdiction isn't lost if the judgment awarded is less than the jurisdictional amount claimed.
- Legal Conclusion:
- The court concluded that the dispute fits the criteria of federal diversity jurisdiction.
- Mr. Mas's claim is valid as it is filed by a foreign citizen against a U.S. citizen.
- Mrs. Mas, retaining her original domicile, has a legitimate claim against someone from a different state.
- Final Holding:
- The court upheld the initial judgment, confirming the district court's jurisdiction under section 1332(a)(2) for Mr. Mas and section 1332(a)(1) for Mrs. Mas.
- It also approved the jurisdiction over claims from an alien and a U.S. citizen against the same defendant when it is related to the same transaction.
- This effectively allows a federal court to hear claims where at least one party is an alien against a U.S. citizen, as well as claims between U.S. citizens from different states.
- Overall, the court decision affirms federal diversity jurisdiction.
LSD+ exclusive
Holding
- Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
- jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
- proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
- jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
- jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
- Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
- Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
- Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
LSD+ exclusive
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. . Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, . Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur
Join LSD+
Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:
- Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
- LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
- Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
- Social learning with LSD community case high points
- Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
- 14-day free trial