Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2025

Buxbaum v. Buxbaum

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:25-cv-00457
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Buxbaum v. Buxbaum, Judge Subramanian ordered Michael Buxbaum to prove Florida citizenship after defendants challenged diversity jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Michael Buxbaum must provide evidence of Florida citizenship; the court’s ability to hear the suit depends on resolving that jurisdictional issue.

What happened

In Buxbaum v. Buxbaum, the court said its authority to hear the case depends on diversity of citizenship between the parties. Michael Buxbaum’s complaint says he is a Florida citizen and gives an address supporting that claim.

Stewart and Geri Buxbaum say Michael is actually a New York citizen, as they are. They submitted evidence stating that the address in his complaint is a strip mall with no residential units.

Judge Arun Subramanian ordered Michael to file enough evidence to show that he is a Florida citizen by April 10, 2025. The order did not decide whether he is domiciled in Florida or whether the court ultimately has jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Buxbaum v. Buxbaum · No. 1:25-cv-00457
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Mar. 27, 2025

Background

Michael Buxbaum sued Stewart Buxbaum and Geri Buxbaum. The court stated that its jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship. The complaint alleges that Michael is a citizen of Florida and lists an address in support of that allegation. Stewart and Geri contend that Michael is instead a citizen of New York; the opinion states that they are also New York citizens. Their evidence included a declaration stating that the address Michael provided is a strip mall with no residential units.

Jurisdictional standard

For diversity jurisdiction, citizenship is based on a person’s domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment, where the person intends to return when absent. A person can have only one domicile at a time, although domicile can change. A person claiming to have changed domicile must prove both an intent to give up the former domicile and an actual residence in the new place, by clear and convincing evidence.

Order and effect

The court ordered Michael to file sufficient evidence showing that he is a citizen of Florida by Thursday, April 10, 2025. The order did not determine Michael’s citizenship, dismiss the case, or reach the underlying dispute. Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on March 27, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.