Herrera v. Torres
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-00677
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Herrera v. Torres, Judge Broderick ordered Herrera to plead Defendants’ domiciles before deciding whether federal jurisdiction exists or default judgment could be entered.
Angeline Herrera must provide additional allegations about Ricardo Torres’s and Mario Bautista’s domiciles before the court will consider proceeding with the case or Herrera’s request for default judgment.
What happened
Herrera v. Torres concerns Angeline Herrera’s claims for at least $84,500 based on what she described as a frivolous wage-related lawsuit brought by Ricardo Torres and Mario Bautista. Herrera filed the case without a lawyer and later sought a default judgment after serving the defendants.
The court first examined whether it had authority to hear the case. Herrera did not state a federal-law claim, so she had to show diversity jurisdiction, including more than $75,000 in dispute and complete diversity between the parties. Although she alleged that she was a New York citizen and that the defendants were citizens of Mexico, the earlier lawsuit indicated that Torres and Bautista were New York residents. The court found that Herrera had not adequately pleaded the defendants’ domiciles.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Herrera to file an amended complaint or another pleading establishing each defendant’s domicile when this case was filed, no later than February 28, 2025. The court did not decide whether to enter default judgment and warned that it might dismiss the case under Rule 41(b) if Herrera did not comply or otherwise show an intent to pursue the case.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. Torres · No. 1:23-cv-00677
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
Angeline Herrera filed this action without a lawyer on January 26, 2023. She sought at least $84,500 from Ricardo Torres and Mario Bautista based on their allegedly frivolous wage-related lawsuit against her and other parties in an earlier case. Herrera alleged that the defendants falsely accused her of legal violations, falsified facts, and harmed her reputation during that lawsuit.
The court previously dismissed Herrera’s claims because service was defective, then reopened the case after Herrera said she had not received the court’s service-related orders because of a change of address. Herrera later filed proof that she had served Bautista and Torres and submitted several filings seeking a default judgment. A default judgment is a judgment sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend.
Jurisdiction
Before addressing whether Herrera’s filings supported default judgment, the court examined subject-matter jurisdiction—its legal authority to hear the dispute. Herrera’s form complaint invoked both federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The court found that Herrera did not actually assert a claim under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction therefore required both an amount in controversy above $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Herrera’s claimed damages satisfied the amount requirement.
For diversity purposes, an individual’s citizenship is based on domicile: the person’s fixed home and principal establishment, along with the intent to return when absent. Herrera alleged that she was a New York citizen and that Torres and Bautista were citizens of Mexico. But in the earlier wage-related lawsuit, Herrera had not disputed that Torres and Bautista were New York residents. The earlier case also included jury findings that Torres worked as a food deliveryman in New York for more than two and a half years and that Bautista did so for about one year. Based on those materials and Herrera’s complaint, the court found that she had not adequately pleaded the defendants’ domiciles and had not established subject-matter jurisdiction.
Order
The court ordered Herrera to submit an amended complaint or another pleading establishing each defendant’s domicile when this case was filed. She was required to do so by February 28, 2025. The court stated that it might dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if she failed to comply or otherwise failed to demonstrate an intent to prosecute the action.
The order did not decide the sufficiency of Herrera’s default-judgment submissions or whether she was entitled to a default judgment on her claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.