DiFonzo v. Unicoin, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-02600
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In DiFonzo v. Unicoin, Judge Furman ordered Plaintiff to amend citizenship allegations or face dismissal.
Christopher DiFonzo must amend the complaint to allege the citizenship of each party. Unicoin, Inc. and the other defendants are affected because the case may be dismissed without prejudice if jurisdiction is not established.
What happened
In DiFonzo v. Unicoin, Inc., Christopher DiFonzo sued Unicoin, Inc. and other defendants, claiming federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. The complaint alleged where the parties lived, but not their citizenship.
The court said residence is not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. It ordered DiFonzo to file an amended complaint by April 8, 2025, properly alleging each party’s citizenship.
Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that if DiFonzo did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction by that date, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.
The detailed version
- DiFonzo v. Unicoin, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-02600
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 1, 2025
Background
Christopher DiFonzo filed a complaint against Unicoin, Inc. and other defendants. He invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states or countries.
The complaint stated that the parties were citizens of different states or countries, but the specific allegations described only the parties’ states of residence. The court explained that residence does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. A person’s citizenship depends on domicile, and the complaint needed to properly allege the citizenship of each party.
Court’s Order
The court ordered DiFonzo to file an amended complaint no later than April 8, 2025, properly alleging the citizenship of every party. The court did not decide the underlying dispute or determine whether the court ultimately has jurisdiction.
The order states that if DiFonzo does not file an amended complaint establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by the deadline, the court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to any party.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court addressed whether the complaint adequately established federal subject-matter jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.