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 Padin’s domicile for diversity jurisdiction or face remand to state court.
Jairo Padin and defendants Eaton Burke, 12NPARK, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.; the case may be remanded to state court if the defendants do not establish Padin’s domicile.
What happened
The case, Padin v. Burke, concerns whether the defendants properly established the parties’ citizenship to support federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The court had previously told the defendants to file an amended notice of removal because residency alone does not establish citizenship.
The defendants’ amended notice said, based on information and belief, that Jairo Padin was a citizen of Passaic County, New Jersey, but relied on the complaint’s allegation that he lived there. The court explained that citizenship depends on domicile—the state where a person is legally considered to have their permanent home—not merely residence.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the defendants to file another amended notice establishing Padin’s state of domicile by May 15, 2025. If they could not do so, the court stated that the case would be remanded to state court.
The detailed version
- Padin v. Burke · No. 1:25-cv-03164
- Rochon
- May 8, 2025
Background
Jairo Padin sued Eaton Burke, 12NPARK, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. The defendants filed a notice of removal, seeking to have the case proceed in federal court. The court’s May 2, 2025 order required the defendants to file an amended notice properly establishing the citizenship of each party for diversity jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that alleging a person’s residence is not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. The relevant concept is domicile, meaning the state in which the person is legally considered to have their permanent home. The defendants’ May 7 amended notice stated, on information and belief, that Padin was a citizen of the County of Passaic, State of New Jersey, but cited the complaint, which alleged only that Padin was a resident of that county and state. Because residence and domicile are not synonymous, the amended notice did not establish Padin’s citizenship.
The court also stated that the party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that the requirements for that jurisdiction exist and that the parties have complete diversity of citizenship.
Order
The court ordered the defendants to file an amended notice of removal establishing Padin’s state of domicile no later than May 15, 2025. The court stated that, if the defendants were unable to do so, the case would be remanded to state court. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.