Mukamal v. Onexxx Production & Exploration Corporation
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-03493
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mukamal v. Onexxx, Judge Castel ordered corrected citizenship allegations before the case can proceed in federal court.
The plaintiffs must investigate and amend the complaint’s citizenship allegations, and the defendants must respond to permitted interrogatories. The case will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if complete diversity is not adequately alleged by the deadline.
What happened
Mukamal v. Onexxx Production & Exploration Corporation involves claims by Kathleen Mukamal, Theodore Mukamal, and Andrew Mukamal against two companies and three individuals. The complaint relied on diversity jurisdiction, which requires all opposing parties to be citizens of different states and more than $75,000 to be at stake.
Judge Castel found that the complaint’s allegations about where the parties lived did not adequately establish their legal citizenship, or domicile. The order allows the plaintiffs to ask questions about the defendants’ citizenship and requires the defendants to respond; it also gives the plaintiffs 45 days to amend the complaint with accurate citizenship allegations.
The court warned that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the amended complaint does not allege complete diversity. The June 6, 2025 order by Judge Castel addressed jurisdictional pleading requirements, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mukamal v. Onexxx Production & Exploration Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-03493
- P. Castel
- June 6, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs are Kathleen Mukamal, Theodore Mukamal, and Andrew Mukamal, who sued individually and on behalf of Onexxx Production & Exploration Corporation and Chartiers Natural Gas Co., Inc. The defendants are Onexxx Production & Exploration Corporation, Chartiers Natural Gas Co., Inc., Anne Weir Bensen, Kimberley Crowell, and Sandra L. Bitner.
The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction, a form of federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount at stake. It alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. For the individuals, however, the complaint generally described where they “reside,” and it alleged the citizenship-related facts about several defendants “upon information and belief.” The complaint alleged that Onexxx was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. An individual’s citizenship depends on domicile: the person’s true, fixed home and principal place of establishment, together with the intent to return when absent. The court also noted that some courts have found unsupported allegations made only upon information and belief insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Order and effect
Within 14 days of the order, the plaintiffs may serve interrogatories—written questions used to obtain information—about the citizenship of each natural-person defendant. They may also ask the corporate defendant about the state where it was incorporated and its principal place of business. The defendants must serve their responses within 14 days.
Within 45 days of the order, the plaintiff must amend the complaint to truthfully and accurately allege the citizenship of each plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff does not allege complete diversity by that deadline, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without further notice. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.