Murga v. Equity One, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:25-cv-01689
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Murga v. Equity One, Judge Kaplan remanded the case because defendants failed to adequately allege Murga’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
Yessika Murga and the defendants, including Equity One (Northeast Portfolio), Inc.; the action was returned to the court from which it had been removed.
What happened
In Murga v. Equity One (Northeast Portfolio), Inc., the court reviewed whether the defendants properly removed the case from state court based on diversity of citizenship. The court had previously found that the removal notice did not adequately allege the citizenship of Yessika Murga or the partnership defendant.
The defendants filed an amended notice that corrected the allegation about the partnership’s citizenship. But it still did not allege that Murga was a citizen of New York and the United States. The court explained that alleging a person’s residence is not enough to establish citizenship for federal jurisdiction.
Judge Kaplan remanded the action to the court from which it was removed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, therefore, lack of removability.
The detailed version
- Murga v. Equity One, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01689
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
The defendants removed this action from state court based on diversity of citizenship. In an order dated February 28, 2025, the court found that the notice of removal did not adequately allege the citizenship of Yessika Murga or the partnership defendant. The court stated that the action would be remanded unless the defendants filed an amended notice correcting those deficiencies.
Amended Notice of Removal
The defendants filed an amended notice that corrected the allegation concerning the partnership defendant’s citizenship. The amended notice still did not allege that Murga was a citizen of New York and of the United States. The court emphasized that an allegation of residence alone does not establish citizenship because citizenship requires allegations sufficient to show domicile and United States citizenship.
Ruling
The court remanded the action to the court from which it was removed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, consequently, lack of removability. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Disposition
The action was remanded to the state court from which it had been removed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.