Doe 1 v. Alexander

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX JANE DOE 1, : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-2113 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER ALTON ALEXANDER, OREN ALEXANDER, and : TAL ALEXANDER, : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On March 14, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in which they invoked the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. 1,96. Although Defendants state that “there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants,” they merely allege the parties’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. Id. 7-10. 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 . . . .”). Accordingly, no later than March 24, 2025, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, Defendants do not file an amended notice of removal 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: March 19, 2025 New York, New York JESSE URMAN nited States District Judge