Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 1, 2025

Louis Idrobo v. The Microsoft Corporation

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-09999
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Louis Idrobo v. Microsoft, Judge Furman ordered Idrobo to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction or face dismissal without prejudice.

Who this affects

The order directly affects Louis Idrobo, who must provide information establishing his citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. It also limits Microsoft’s ability to respond to that supplemental filing without the court’s permission.

What happened

In Louis Idrobo v. The Microsoft Corporation, the court had allowed Louis Idrobo to file another complaint because it might be possible to establish federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. Idrobo then filed a Second Amended Complaint, but alleged only his state of residence.

The court explained that residence is not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. It ordered Idrobo to file, by October 15, 2025, a letter stating his citizenship. The letter will be treated as an additional pleading, and Microsoft may not respond without the court’s permission.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice if Idrobo does not establish subject-matter jurisdiction by the deadline. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Louis Idrobo v. The Microsoft Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-09999
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Oct. 1, 2025

Background

On February 28, 2025, the court gave Louis Idrobo permission to replead his claims against Microsoft because there was a reasonable chance that he could properly allege diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Idrobo filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 7, 2025.

Jurisdictional problem

Idrobo stated that his complaint qualified for federal review based on diversity, but alleged only his state of residence. The court explained that a party’s residence does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes. Citizenship depends on domicile, and the pleadings must establish the parties’ citizenship rather than merely their residences.

Order

The court ordered Idrobo to file, no later than October 15, 2025, a letter attesting to his citizenship. The court stated that the letter would be treated as a supplemental pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). Microsoft may not respond to the supplemental pleading unless the court first grants permission.

If Idrobo does not file a letter establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by October 15, 2025, the court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice to the parties. The clerk was directed to mail Idrobo a copy of the order. The order addressed whether federal jurisdiction had been adequately pleaded and did not resolve the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.