Joshua Nazario

Professor Healy

PLA 1003

18 September 21

Ceglia v. Zuckerberg case questions:

1.) Either Plaintiff or defendant must declare permanent domicility of their desired
state (MUST be declared at the date in which the complaint is filed) ,whereby the
court can then wield “diversity jurisdiction” in the case (Federal case, rather than
state case)), adjudicate the citizenship of the litigants, and minimize any instances
of local bias.
2.) Zuckerberg’s “Principal Place of Business” was/is documented in California; an
intentional, legal, change in domicility occurs when:
A.).Residence in a new domicile;

B.) The intention to remain there indefinitely

3.) Ceglia insisted that Zuckerberg is unequivocally a domicile to New York state
in that Zuckerberg, notwithstanding the various evidences which Zuckerberg
published showing that he is a devout taxpayer who has registered real estate
property (which are requisites used to identify a person’s domicility), asserted
domicility to New York State in a preceding New York court case (archived in
2004). Ceglia predicates his argument on the fact that Zuckerberg, after his
departure from Harvard university for summer break, had spent his vacation in
California and sought to rent an apartment whilst his nascent social media
incorporation, Facebook, grew. Ceglia later posits that although Zuckerberg never
returned to New York-specifically to his parents’ residence-, his domicility still is
legally bound to New York.

As aforesaid, evidence that the court used in favor of Zuckerberg was the records
submitted by Zuckerberg prior to the case. Records included:

● Zuckerberg currently resides in California and has done so continuously

since the summer of 2004.
● Zuckerberg has paid California resident income taxes since 2004.
● He has not filed taxes in any state other than California.
 ● Brokerage accounts cite his California residence.
An imperative detail that met the criterion of “permanent domicility” (as
set forth by common law) was that Zuckerberg’s incorporation, that is, his
“Principal place business” is located in California.
The Court immediately dismissed Ceglia’s obsolete evidence which aimed to state that the case
was lacking “diversity”- thereby stressing the superfluousness of having a “diverse jurisdiction”
and claiming that the domicility of Ceglia and Zuckerberg are the same. In sum, Ceglia’s request
for a remand in a state court did not come to fruition which consequently prevented a bias trial
against Zuckerberg and his incorporation.