Cortorreal Santana v. Saltos
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-00088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cortorreal Santana v. Saltos, Judge Engelmayer ordered the removing defendants to clarify citizenship before deciding whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
The order directly affects defendants Jefferson Saltos and Fredonia Express Corp., who must provide additional information about the parties’ citizenship and corporate details. It also affects plaintiff Yeral Osmar Cortorreal Santana because that information will determine whether the federal court can hear the case.
What happened
Cortorreal Santana v. Saltos concerns whether the federal court has jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. The defendants removed the case from another court, relying only on diversity of citizenship.
The defendants’ filings gave conflicting information about defendant Jefferson Saltos’s citizenship. The removal notice said he was a New Jersey resident, while the complaint alleged he was a New York citizen and the answer said the defendants lacked enough information to know his residency. The plaintiff was also alleged to be a New York citizen, which would defeat diversity if Saltos were a New York citizen.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered the removing defendants to file a letter by January 31, 2025, explaining the citizenship of all parties, the incorporation and principal business locations of any corporations, and the factual bases for those statements. The order did not decide whether federal jurisdiction exists or address the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Cortorreal Santana v. Saltos · No. 1:25-cv-00088
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 29, 2025
Background
Defendants Jefferson Saltos and Fredonia Express Corp. removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting diversity of citizenship as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires the amount-in-controversy requirement to be met, although the order focused on citizenship.
The court found that the defendants’ filings did not clearly establish the required diversity. The notice of removal stated that Saltos was a New Jersey resident. The defendants’ answer, however, denied having enough information to know Saltos’s residency. The complaint alleged that Saltos was a citizen of New York and also alleged that the plaintiff was a New York citizen. If those allegations were correct, the parties would not have the required diversity of citizenship.
Order
To allow the court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists, the court required the removing defendants to file an electronic letter by January 31, 2025. The letter must state the citizenship of all parties, the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any corporate entities, and the factual bases for those conclusions.
The order did not determine the parties’ citizenship, rule that diversity jurisdiction exists or does not exist, or reach the merits of the underlying dispute. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.