Subotovsky v. White

Background

Hugo and Guido Subotovsky sued Kyshawn Cedric White and Second Providence Baptist Church for defamation. The plaintiffs invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy also meets the legal threshold.

In the original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the natural persons’ residences and the church’s principal place of business. The court explained that a natural person’s citizenship depends on domicile—the person’s legal home—not merely residence. It also explained that a corporation is a citizen of both the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.

After the court identified these problems, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that the church was organized and existing under New York law, but it continued to allege only the natural persons’ residences. The court concluded that the plaintiffs still had not properly pleaded diversity jurisdiction.

Ruling

The court stated that the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs had not carried their burden to plead a proper basis for federal jurisdiction. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Entry 18.

The court gave Plaintiffs one more opportunity to amend. It said this would be their last chance and noted that they should consider issues raised in Defendants’ motion to dismiss, including authority suggesting that conclusory damages allegations may not establish the amount in controversy. The court did not decide whether the defamation claims were legally valid. Because it found that jurisdiction was lacking, it expressly took no position on the merits.

Pleading guidance and deadlines

The court reminded Plaintiffs that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to show a plausible entitlement to relief. Legal conclusions and bare recitations of the elements of a claim are not enough, although factual allegations are generally accepted as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage and reasonable inferences are drawn in Plaintiffs’ favor.

Plaintiffs could file a second amended complaint by July 3, 2024. Defendants’ answer or renewed motion to dismiss was due July 12, 2024; Plaintiffs’ opposition was due July 22, 2024; and Defendants’ reply was due July 26, 2024.