Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 19, 2025

Chen v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-01325
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Chen v. Hanover, Judge Furman ordered defendants to correct their removal notice or the case will return to state court.

Who this affects

Angela Chen and the defendants, including The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.; the action may be returned to New York state court if the defendants cannot truthfully establish complete diversity of citizenship.

What happened

In Angela Chen v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. et al., the defendants moved the case from New York state court to federal court, claiming that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.

The court found that the defendants had alleged Chen’s residence, not her citizenship. That allegation was not enough to establish the federal court’s authority to hear the case based on diversity of citizenship.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the defendants to amend their removal notice by February 25, 2025, to properly allege Chen’s citizenship. If they could not truthfully establish complete diversity, the court said the case would be sent back to the New York Supreme Court in New York County.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Chen v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01325
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Feb. 19, 2025

Background

The defendants removed the action from the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They asserted that removal was proper because the federal court had diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants alleged that the parties were not citizens of the same state, but their allegations identified only Chen’s state of residence. The court explained that residence does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. Citizenship depends on domicile, and the defendants had not adequately alleged Chen’s citizenship.

Order

The court directed the defendants to amend their notice of removal no later than February 25, 2025, to properly allege Chen’s citizenship. If the defendants could not truthfully allege complete diversity of citizenship, the court stated that the action would be remanded—sent back—to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, without further notice. The court also directed the defendants to serve Chen with the order within two business days and file proof of service, and directed Chen’s counsel to file a notice of appearance within two business days after that service.

The order did not itself remand the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.