Vaknin v. Gao

Background

Michael Vaknin and Abraham Vaknin brought the action against Yang Gao, Hui Fang, and Shimeg Huang. The plaintiffs invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), which can allow a federal court to hear a civil case involving more than $75,000 when the opposing parties are citizens of different states or otherwise satisfy the statute’s citizenship requirements.

Jurisdictional Deficiency

The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were residents of New Jersey and that, “upon information and belief,” the defendants were residents of New York. The court explained that residence alone does not establish domicile, which determines an individual’s citizenship for diversity purposes. The complaint therefore failed to allege the parties’ citizenships.

The court also stated that all opposing parties must be completely diverse. It noted that diversity jurisdiction could be absent if foreign citizens appeared on both sides of the case in the circumstances described by the court.

Order

Within 14 days of the order, the plaintiffs must serve limited interrogatories—written questions used to obtain information—on the defendants seeking their citizenships. Within 30 days, the plaintiffs must amend the complaint to allege the citizenship of all parties. The court stated that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the plaintiffs do not amend the complaint.

Judge P. Kevin Castel issued this order addressing the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction at the beginning of the case. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.