The court concluded that Gordon was a citizen of the state of Idaho for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. To qualify for subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must establish diversity of citizenship amongst the parties, as determined by the domicile test. Under the domicile test, an individual establishes a new domicile that overrides their previous domicile when they move to a new state with the intent to stay there indefinitely. The court explained that the relevant domicile is that which the plaintiff had at the time they filed their suit, and that “[t]he fact of residency must be coupled with a finding of intent to remain indefinitely.”

The court reasoned that Gordon’s connection to Idaho through her school, church, and community organizations as well as her subjective intention to not return to Pennsylvania in the foreseeable future showed that she is a citizen of the state of Idaho for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. While Susan returned to Pennsylvania on multiple occasions to visit her family, retained bank accounts in Erie, and still used her parents’ address on certain documents, the court found that the only relevant factor was that she did not have a definite intention to return to the state after completing college in Idaho.