CA1: domicile fight requires evidentiary hearing

Padilla-Mangual v. Pavia Hospital, No. 07-1447.  Every now and then there is a question of whether someone’s “domicile” is for diversity purposes.  Anyway, the District Court dismissed without holding an evidentiary hearing, seemingly relying on the fact that he filed another complaint in Puerto Rico state court that claimed that he was a resident of Puerto Rico (as opposed to Florida).  If he was really a resident of Puerto Rico, diversity would be destroyed.  The First says that the filing and the fact he didn’t take an “affirmative step” such as opening a bank account really isn’t dispositive.  Instead, there is a “presumption of continuing domicile” and this is a very fact-bound decision.  So, relying just on documents was an abuse of discretion.  And, it remands for an evidentiary hearing, discovery, or whatever.

(For some reason the First writes “negligent medical treatment” rather than “malpractice.”  I am sure that they know the difference under Puerto Rican law.  I wonder if the underlying case involves actual negligent treatment.)