Norton v. Splitit Consumer Funding LLC and Splitit USA Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-08697
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Norton v. Splitit, Judge Cronan ordered Allison Norton to amend jurisdiction allegations or face dismissal.
Allison Norton must provide additional citizenship information for herself and the defendants to establish diversity jurisdiction; otherwise, the court stated that it will dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Allison Norton v. Splitit Consumer Funding LLC and Splitit USA Inc., Norton relied on diversity jurisdiction but alleged only her New Jersey residency, not her domicile. She also did not provide the required citizenship information for Splitit Consumer Funding LLC’s members or for Splitit USA Inc.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the citizenship—not just residency—of each party. It ordered Norton to amend her Complaint by October 29, 2025, to provide the missing information.
Judge John P. Cronan did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that the court will dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if Norton does not amend or otherwise establish jurisdiction under federal law.
The detailed version
- Norton v. Splitit Consumer Funding LLC and Splitit USA Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-08697
- John Cronan
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Allison Norton filed her Complaint on October 21, 2025, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Complaint alleged that Norton is a resident of New Jersey. It alleged that Splitit Consumer Funding LLC is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. But it did not allege the citizenship of Splitit USA Inc. or the citizenship of any members of Splitit Consumer Funding LLC.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that an individual’s domicile, rather than residence alone, determines citizenship for diversity purposes. It also explained that a limited liability company has the citizenship of each of its members. A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. Therefore, a complaint based on diversity jurisdiction must provide the relevant citizenship information for individuals and entities whose citizenship is attributed to a party. The court also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) requires a diversity-jurisdiction disclosure identifying every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to a party or intervenor.
Order and effect
The court ordered Norton, no later than October 29, 2025, to amend her Complaint to allege her state of domicile, the citizenship of each member of Splitit Consumer Funding LLC, and the citizenship of Splitit USA Inc. The court stated that if Norton fails to amend by that date, or otherwise properly establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), it will dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice. The order did not dismiss the action at that time. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.