Calle v. Kearney

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: February 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX RUTH CALLE, : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-1265 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER CANNON KEARNEY, : Defendant. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On February 12, 2025, 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, 94. Although Plaintiff states that “there is complete diversity of citizenship,” she merely alleges the parties’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. Id. 9§ 4, 6-7. 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)); Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[A] statement of the parties’ residence is insufficient to establish their citizenship.”); 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 February 21, 2025, 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: February 14, 2025 New York, New York JESS FURMAN United States District Judge