Hawkins v. Retsila Cab Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-09242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Aaron Hawkins v. Retsila Cab Corp., Judge Broderick allowed defendants 14 days to correct citizenship allegations or the case will be remanded to state court.
Retsila Cab Corp. and Abusaleh M. Delowar must correct the citizenship allegations in their notice of removal within 14 days, or the case will be remanded to New York Supreme Court. Aaron Hawkins is affected because the case’s continued presence in federal court depends on that correction.
What happened
Aaron Hawkins v. Retsila Cab Corp. began in New York state court and was moved to federal court by Retsila Cab Corp. and Abusaleh M. Delowar, who claimed the parties were citizens of different states.
The defendants’ filing described Hawkins as a New York resident and citizen, while Hawkins’s complaint described him as a New Jersey resident and the defendants as based in New York. The court explained that residence alone does not establish citizenship for federal jurisdiction.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick gave the defendants 14 days to file an amended notice correcting the citizenship allegations. If they do not, the court will remand the case to New York Supreme Court without further order.
The detailed version
- Hawkins v. Retsila Cab Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-09242
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
Aaron Hawkins filed this action in New York Supreme Court, New York County, on August 18, 2025. Retsila Cab Corp. and Abusaleh M. Delowar removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 6, 2025. They asserted federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, which generally requires the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000 and the parties to be citizens of different states.
The defendants’ notice of removal stated that Hawkins was a citizen of New York because he resided in New York County. It also stated that the defendants were New York residents with their principal place of business in New York, and that they were not citizens of New Jersey. Hawkins’s original complaint, however, described him as a resident of New Jersey and the defendants as residing in and maintaining a principal place of business in New York.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an individual’s citizenship depends on domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment—not merely residence. The party removing a case to federal court has the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found that the notice of removal did not properly allege Hawkins’s citizenship and appeared to suggest that both sides might be citizens of New York. But because Hawkins’s complaint was inconsistent with the notice, the court suspected that the defendants had made an error rather than that diversity was necessarily absent.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants leave to amend their notice of removal. It ordered them to file an amended notice within 14 days of the order, correcting the citizenship allegations. If they do not meet that deadline, the court will remand the case to the New York Supreme Court without further order. The order did not decide the underlying claims or definitively determine the parties’ citizenship.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.