Wei v. Wang
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-01567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wei v. Wang, Judge Furman ordered an amended complaint alleging every party’s citizenship or said the case would be dismissed without prejudice.
Tianyi Wei and the defendants, because the order requires Wei to clarify the citizenship of every party before the case can proceed in federal court.
What happened
In Wei v. Wang, Tianyi Wei invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows certain lawsuits involving citizens of different states or countries to be heard in federal court. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege the parties’ citizenship.
The court said the complaint might involve noncitizens on both sides, which could prevent diversity jurisdiction. It also explained that the complaint needed to identify each individual’s domicile, each limited liability company’s members and their citizenship, and each corporation’s state of incorporation and principal place of business.
The court ordered Wei to file an amended complaint by March 5, 2025, properly alleging every party’s citizenship. Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that if Wei did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction by that date, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.
The detailed version
- Wei v. Wang · No. 1:25-cv-01567
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 26, 2025
Background
On February 24, 2025, Tianyi Wei filed a complaint invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) and (3). The court found that Wei’s statement that she was “completely diverse from the Defendants” was conclusory and did not adequately establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction generally does not cover cases involving noncitizens on both sides. Wei alleged that she resided in Saint Kitts and Nevis and was a Chinese national. If those allegations meant that Wei was not a United States citizen, the court stated that jurisdiction could be lacking because several defendants were also alleged to be noncitizens.
The court identified three categories of pleading deficiencies:
1. Individuals: For a United States citizen, citizenship is based on domicile—the person’s true, fixed home—not merely residence. The complaint therefore needed to allege the domicile of each individual United States citizen. The court also noted that a lawful permanent resident who is a noncitizen remains an alien for diversity-jurisdiction purposes even if domiciled in a state.
2. Limited liability companies: An LLC is considered a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens. The complaint therefore needed to identify the citizenship of all natural-person members and, for corporate members, the state of incorporation and principal place of business. It also needed to provide citizenship information for members that were themselves LLCs.
3. Corporations: A corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. The complaint needed to allege both facts for each corporate defendant.
Order
The court ordered Wei to file an amended complaint no later than March 5, 2025, properly alleging the citizenship of every party. The order stated that if Wei 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. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.