Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc.

S.D. New York

Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc.

DecidedJuly 25, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-06339

StatusUnknown

This text of Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. (Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX JEFFREY FROMMER, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23-CV-6339 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On July 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in which they invoked the Court’s subject- matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. 1, § 18. Although Plaintiffs state that “there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties,” they merely allege the Plaintiffs’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. /d. 12-15, 18. 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 1, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, Plaintiffs do 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: July 25, 2023 New York, New York JESS URMAN nited States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX JEFFREY FROMMER, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 23-CV-6339 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On July 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in which they invoked the Court’s subject- matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See ECF No. 1, § 18. Although Plaintiffs state that “there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties,” they merely allege the Plaintiffs’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship. /d. 12-15, 18. 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 1, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party to this action. If, by that date, Plaintiffs do 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: July 25, 2023 New York, New York JESS URMAN nited States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frommer-v-moneylion-technologies-inc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack