Laverty v. Dobco, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USCCUn ange SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK dl a ~ ENOL OY ge op □□□ □ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ; Lop i Plaintiff, : (EEN tar ogee □□□ □□□ y ORDER DOBCO, INC., 21 CV 2592 (VB) Defendant. : nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn cn nnn nen ne nee een een nena K Plaintiff brings this action invoking subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

To invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity of citizenship. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 “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, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) applies when the dispute is between “citizens of different States.”

An individual’s citizenship is determined by domicile—“the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, an allegation of residency alone is insufficient. “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State .. . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010).

The complaint alleges plaintiff is a resident of New York and defendant “is [a] New Jersey corporation.” The complaint does not allege plaintiff's citizenship. Nor does it plead defendant’s principal place of business.

Accordingly, by April 8, 2021, plaintiff shall submit a letter explaining in full detail both plaintiff's and defendant’s citizenship.

Dated: April 1, 2021 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge