Doe 1 v. Alexander
- Jesse Furman
- 2:25-cv-02113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Doe 1 v. Alexander, Judge Furman ordered an amended removal notice because residence allegations did not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
The order affects Jane Doe 1 and defendants Alton Alexander, Oren Alexander, and Tal Alexander. It requires the defendants to provide amended jurisdictional allegations and conditionally states that the case will be dismissed without prejudice if they do not do so by March 24, 2025.
What happened
In Jane Doe 1 v. Alton Alexander, Oren Alexander, and Tal Alexander, the defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Their notice alleged the parties’ states of residence but did not allege their states of citizenship.
The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. It gave the defendants until March 24, 2025, to file an amended notice properly alleging each party’s citizenship.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not dismiss the case at this stage. He stated that if the defendants did not file an amended notice establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by the deadline, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. Alexander · No. 2:25-cv-02113
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 19, 2025
Background
On March 14, 2025, the defendants filed a notice removing the case from another court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They relied on diversity jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear a dispute involving citizens of different states. The defendants alleged that there was complete diversity but identified only the parties’ states of residence, not their states of citizenship.
Court’s analysis
The court held that allegations of residence are insufficient to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. For this purpose, a person’s citizenship depends on domicile, meaning the person’s legal home. The court therefore found that the removal notice did not properly establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority to hear the case.
Order and effect
The court ordered the defendants to file, no later than March 24, 2025, an amended notice of removal properly alleging the citizenship of every party. The court did not dismiss the case at this stage. It stated that if the defendants failed to file an amended notice establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.