USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECFRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC#: ene cone □□□ enone nnenenmenerececeesK oe DATE FILED: ROQUE PEREZ, : : f = Plaintiff, : ORDER : LESTER W. GREEN, EDWARDO J. JUSTINIANO, GUILLERMO J. SORAIRE, 20 CV 9289 (VB) and LUIS R. SORAIRE, Defendants. :

a a te tS Plaintiff brings this action invoking subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship under

. To invoke diversity jurisdiction under

, there must be complete diversity of citizenship. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis,

(1996). Thus,

“applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Id.; see also Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche,

(2005). Specifically,

(a)(2) applies when the dispute is between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” However, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1332(a)(2) when the action is “between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State.” The complaint alleges plaintiff “is a citizen of the Republic of Mexico, [and] resides and still resides in Middletown, New York.” It also alleges that all four defendants are citizens of New York. But the complaint is silent as to whether plaintiff is or is not “lawfully admitted for □□ permanent residence in the United States.” □□

Accordingly, by November 13, 2020, without disclosing plaintiff's immigration status, plaintiffs counsel shall submit a letter stating whether his client is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Dated: November 6, 2020 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: a

Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge