DiFonzo v. Unicoin, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn KX CHRISTOPHER DIFONZO, : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-2600 (JMF) -V- : : ORDER UNICOIN, INC. et al., : Defendants. : wn KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in which he invoked the Court’s subject- matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. 5, □ 12. Although Plaintiff states that the parties “are citizens of different states or countries,” he merely alleges the parties’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. Jd. §[ 8-10. 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 wee). Accordingly, no later than April 8, 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: April 1, 2025 New York, New York SSE M-FURMAN ited States District Judge