1. The issue is whether subject matter jurisdiction exists to try this case in federal court.

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's ability to hear a specific case based on the issue in the
case. One example is a federal question. This is when a plaintiff is claiming against a defendant
using a federal statute. Here the plaintiff is using a state contract and torts claims so the federal
question is not applicable. Another type of subject matter jurisdiction is diversity. For diversity, a
plaintiff can make a state claim against a defendant but needs to be completely diverse from the
defendant. Therefore they must be domiciled in separate states. The domlice is checked at the
time the lawsuit is filed. A person's domicile is where the individual is present and intends to
remain indefinitely. Furthermore a person keeps their old domicile until they acquire a new one.
Finally the amount in controversy must exceed 75,000 to be a valid diversity jurisdiction claim.

Here, the buyer meets the 75,000 threshold. Even the smaller 2,500 claim for contract
breach would suffice, because it will be included in the larger tort claim,and a plaintiff can
aggregate all claims against a single defendant. The defective car that the seller sold to the
buyer was the car that breached the contract and caused the damage that created the tort
claim. Therefore the amount in controversy is satisfied.
At the time of the sale, buyer and seller were domiciled in state X because they were
present there and planned to remain there indefinitely. However, once the buyer decided to
permanently move to state Y and remain in state y, his domicile began to shift to state y. He
satisfied both requirements, intent to remain in state y, since he acquired a new apartment
there, and he was present there. The fact that he was in state x while moving his stuff does not
mean he still kept his domicile in state x, rather it already shifted to state y. Furthermore, since
the seller was still domiciled in state x at the time the lawsuit was filed, they were perfectly and
completely diverse. Therefore, the fact that the seller moved to state y after the lawsuit was filed
makes no practical difference. The court should not dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

2. The issue is whether the court should allow for a change in venue.

Venue for case is determined by the following rules: The case can be held in the judicial district
in which any defendant resides in, judicial district in which a substantial part of events giving rise
to the claim occur or any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to Court’s personal
jurisdiction for this complaint. The last option is only applicable if all other means fail and
therefore not relevant here. Furthermore, the court can transfer venue from one federal court to
another federal court and not a state court and will only do so “in the interest of justice and
convenience of parties”

Here, the buyer choose the district court in state x because it was where the accident occurred.
This would be valid under the rule. However if the seller was to make a motion to transfer the
venue, using 28 USC 1404, they may be successful. This is because since the lawsuit was filed,
the seller also moved to state y. Now both parties live in state Y. Therefore, the best option for
all parties would be to transfer the case to state Y since it would be most convenient. The court
should allow the sellers motion to change the venue