Freedman v. Rakosi

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED LINDA M. FREEDMAN AND STANLEY DOC #: __ SPERBER, DATE FILED: 10/2/2023 Plaintiffs, -against- Civ. 472 (AT) MICHAEL F. RAKOSI, SUSAN RAKOSI ROSENBLOOM, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR STANLEY ROSENBLOOM, and WEBER REALTY MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants.

MICHAEL F. RAKOSI, Plaintiff, -against- Civ. 8410 (AT) LINDA M. FREEDMAN, STANLEY SPERBER, HILLEL ABRAMS, and RACHEL ORDER RABINOVITCH, Defendants, STANLEY ROSENBLOOM and SUSAN RAKOSI ROSENBLOOM as attorney-in-fact for Stanley Rosenbloom, Nominal Defendants.

ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On January 19, 2023, Linda M. Freedman and Stanley Sperber brought an action against Michael F. Rakosi, Susan Rakosi Rosenbloom, as attorney-in-fact for Stanley Rosenbloom, and Weber Realty Management LLC, in the matter captioned Freedman v. Rakosi, 23 Civ. 472.

Freedman Compl., 23 Civ. 472, ECF No. 1. Freedman and Sperber brought the action invoking subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship under 23 U.S.C. § 1332. See id. ¥ 2.

On September 22, 2023, Rakosi brought a separate action against Freedman, Sperber, Hillel Abrams, and Rachel Rabinovitch, in the matter captioned Rakosi v. Freedman, 23 Civ. 8410. Rakosi Compl., Civ. 8410, ECF No. 1. On September 29, 2023, Rakosi v. Freedman, 23 Civ. 8410, was reassigned to the undersigned. 23 Civ. 8410, Dkt. Entries 9/29/2023. Rakosi brought that action invoking subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship under § 1332. See Rakosi Compl. § 18.

An individual who 1s legally an American citizen but who is domiciled abroad is considered “stateless” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; in such a circumstance, § 1332 cannot be satisfied, and diversity jurisdiction is not present. See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828—29 (1989) (If a person is “a United States citizen, [but] has no domicile in any State[,] . . . [his] ‘stateless’ status destroy[s] complete diversity.”). Subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by a party or a court sua sponte. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

The Court has been advised that Sperber may be a citizen of the United States. Sperber is domiciled in Israel. See Freedman Compl. § 4; Rakosi Compl. § 12. If Sperber is a United States citizen domiciled in Israel, he is stateless for the purposes of § 1332. Newman-Green, 490 U.S. at 828-29. The Court, therefore, would lack subject matter jurisdiction over both actions.

Accordingly, by October 10, 2023, Plaintiffs in both actions shall file letters advising the Court whether Sperber is a United States citizen, and if so, why these matters should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs fail to file a letter by the deadline, the cases will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2023 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge