Padin v. Burke
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-03164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Padin v. Burke, Judge Rochon ordered defendants to prove the parties’ citizenship or face remand to state court.
The order affects Jairo Padin and defendants Eaton Burke, 12NPark, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.; the defendants must establish each party’s citizenship or the case will be remanded to state court.
What happened
In Padin v. Burke, the defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, but their filing described Jairo Padin only as a New Jersey resident. The case also names Eaton Burke, 12NPark, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. as defendants.
The court explained that residence is not enough to establish citizenship for federal diversity jurisdiction. The defendants had to properly show the citizenship of every party and that complete diversity existed.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the defendants to file an amended notice of removal by May 9, 2025, establishing each party’s citizenship. If they did not do so, the court said it would return the case to state court.
The detailed version
- Padin v. Burke · No. 1:25-cv-03164
- Rochon
- May 2, 2025
Background
On May 1, 2025, Eaton Burke, 12NPARK, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. filed a corrected notice of removal. Removal is the process of transferring a case from state court to federal court. The defendants relied on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the required amount in controversy.
The defendants stated that complete diversity existed because Jairo Padin was a citizen of New Jersey, Eaton Burke was domiciled in New York, and 12NPARK and FedEx were corporations headquartered in New York and Tennessee. But the notice of removal alleged only Padin’s residence, and the complaint likewise said only that he was a resident of Passaic County, New Jersey.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, for diversity jurisdiction, an individual’s citizenship depends on domicile, not residence alone. The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional facts, including the citizenship of each party and complete diversity. The court therefore found that the defendants had not yet properly established the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court ordered the defendants to file an amended notice of removal no later than May 9, 2025, properly establishing the citizenship of each party. The court stated that, if the defendants failed to do so, it would remand the case—that is, return it—to state court. The order addressed federal jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court addressed whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction had been adequately established, not the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.