[12 FSM Intrm. 128]
* * * *
[12 FSM Intrm. 129]
* * * *
ANDON L. AMARAICH, Chief Justice:
On August 15, 2003, the parties filed a joint brief requesting that this Court continue to exercise jurisdiction in the above-referenced matter notwithstanding the fact that the party whose citizenship gave rise to this Court's jurisdiction (based on diverse citizenship, FSM Const. art. XI, 6(b), has been dismissed from the case. The remaining parties allege that the "statute of limitation would become an issue" if this case were dismissed by the national court and the parties were required to re-file it in state court.
It is well established that diversity "is determined as of the commencement of the action." Etpison v. Perman, 1 FSM Intrm. 405, 414 (Pon. 1984). Once diversity jurisdiction attaches, or vests, "it is not defeated by later developments," id., such as a party's later change of domicile or the dismissal of a party due to partial settlement. See also Jack H. Friedenthal, Mary Kay Kane & Arthur R. Miller, Civil Procedure 28-29 (1985) ("In determining whether diversity of citizenship exists, the critical moment is the time at which the suit is commenced. . . . The rationale for this rule is the practical necessity of having a definite and easily ascertainable bench mark for determining whether jurisdiction has been established.")
Diversity of citizenship existed at the time this action was filed in the national court. Accordingly, the Court hereby grants the parties’ request that the above-referenced action proceed in national court.
* * * *