Coma v. De Cuebas
356 F. Supp. 3d 198 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-state college student is presumed not to change their domicile to the state of their university; to overcome this, the student must prove by a preponderance of the evidence both physical presence and a specific intent to remain in the new state indefinitely, demonstrated through substantial ties and concrete post-graduate plans.
Facts:
- Leylian Areces Coma, originally from Puerto Rico, attended Lynn University in Florida for her undergraduate studies.
- While attending university, Coma lived in on-campus housing and was financially supported by her parents, who resided in Puerto Rico.
- During her time in Florida, Coma maintained her Puerto Rico driver's license and was classified by the university as an out-of-state student.
- Coma's university transcripts and medical records listed her parents' address in Puerto Rico, and she returned to Puerto Rico during school vacations.
- Coma opened one bank account in Florida, which remained her sole bank account.
- Coma testified that it was her intention to remain in the United States and not return to Puerto Rico after graduation, but she had no concrete post-graduate employment or study plans in Florida at the time she filed her lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Leylian Areces Coma sued Dr. Jazmín Oliva de Cuebas and Dr. Roberto Hernández Orsini in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, a federal trial court.
- Coma asserted that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, claiming she was a citizen of Florida and the defendants were citizens of Puerto Rico.
- The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that Coma was also a citizen of Puerto Rico, meaning the parties were not diverse.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an out-of-state college student, for the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, change her domicile from Puerto Rico to Florida by attending university, opening a bank account, and expressing a general intent to remain in the United States, while maintaining her Puerto Rico driver's license, being financially dependent on her parents in Puerto Rico, and lacking concrete post-graduate plans in Florida at the time of filing suit?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi
No. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an out-of-state college student does not change her domicile merely by being physically present and expressing a general desire to remain, when the objective evidence shows her substantial ties remain with her original domicile. To establish a new domicile, a party must demonstrate both physical presence and a specific intent to remain indefinitely. There is a strong presumption that out-of-state students do not change their domicile, which can only be overcome by showing clear intent and substantive connections to the new state. Here, Coma's ties to Florida were superficial (physical presence for school, one bank account) compared to her significant, ongoing ties to Puerto Rico (driver's license, financial dependency, family home address on all records). Her general desire to leave Puerto Rico did not equate to a specific intent to make Florida her permanent home, especially given her lack of concrete post-graduate commitments in Florida. Therefore, her domicile remained in Puerto Rico at the time the complaint was filed.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the high evidentiary burden for out-of-state students attempting to establish a new domicile for diversity jurisdiction. The court's analysis emphasizes that subjective intent alone is insufficient; it must be corroborated by objective, substantive actions that sever ties to the former domicile and create permanent ones in the new state. The decision reinforces that courts will weigh factors like financial independence, voter registration, and driver's licenses more heavily than temporary arrangements like student housing or a single bank account. This serves as a strong precedent against students 'manufacturing' diversity jurisdiction simply by attending college in a different state.
