Antus v. Frontrunner Technologies USA, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX JEANNINE ANTUS, : Plaintiff, : : 23-CV-7058 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER FRONTRUNNER TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. et al., □ Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in which she invoked the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. 1, 95. Plaintiff states that the parties “are residents of different states,” pleading the parties’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. /d. This is not enough. See, e.g., Davis v. Cannick, No. 14-CV-7571 (SJF) (SIL), 2015 WL 1954491, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2015) (“[A] conclusory allegation in the Complaint regarding diversity of citizenship does not extinguish the Court’s responsibility to determine, on its own review of the pleadings, whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). For the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, “‘a statement of the parties’ residence is insufficient to establish their citizenship.” Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996); see also, e.g., Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998) (“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.”); Canedy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A]llegations of residency alone cannot establish citizenship . . . .”). Accordingly, no later than August 23, 2023, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint establishing this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party.

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 16, 2023 New York, New York JESSE MAN Uglited States District Judge