Calle v. Kearney
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-01265
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Calle v. Kearney, Judge Furman ordered Ruth Calle to identify the parties’ citizenship or face dismissal without prejudice.
Ruth Calle must amend her complaint to allege each party’s citizenship by February 21, 2025; otherwise, the case will be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Calle v. Kearney began when Ruth Calle invoked federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. She alleged the parties’ states of residence, but not their states of citizenship.
The court said residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. It ordered Calle to file an amended complaint identifying each party’s citizenship by February 21, 2025.
Judge Jesse M. Furman warned that the court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice if Calle does not establish federal jurisdiction by that date.
The detailed version
- Calle v. Kearney · No. 1:25-cv-01265
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 14, 2025
Background
On February 12, 2025, Ruth Calle filed a complaint against Cannon Kearney. She invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states. Calle alleged that there was complete diversity of citizenship, but the complaint identified only the parties’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a party’s residence is not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. For this purpose, citizenship depends on domicile. The court therefore determined that the complaint did not properly establish the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to hear the case.
Order and effect
The court ordered Calle to file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party no later than February 21, 2025. Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that if Calle did not file an amended complaint establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by that date, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party. The order did not decide the underlying dispute between Calle and Kearney.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.