Hernandez v. Warwick Properties. Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-01573
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hernandez v. Warwick Properties, Judge Briccetti ordered plaintiff to provide missing citizenship details needed to assess diversity jurisdiction.
Natividad Martinez Hernandez, Warwick Properties Inc., and MJJ Builders Corp.; the order required Hernandez to provide additional citizenship information before the court could assess diversity jurisdiction.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Warwick Properties, Natividad Martinez Hernandez sued Warwick Properties Inc. and MJJ Builders Corp., claiming federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. The complaint alleged that Hernandez lived in New Jersey and that the defendants were New York corporations.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. A person’s citizenship depends on domicile, not residence alone, and a corporation’s citizenship includes its state of incorporation and principal place of business.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered Hernandez to submit, by March 2, 2020, a letter explaining in detail the citizenship of the plaintiff and defendants. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Warwick Properties. Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-01573
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
Natividad Martinez Hernandez brought the action against Warwick Properties Inc. and MJJ Builders Corp. The complaint invoked subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Jurisdictional Requirements
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant. For an individual, citizenship is determined by domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment, to which the person intends to return. Alleging residence alone is not enough.
For a corporation, citizenship includes both the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.
Deficiencies in the Complaint
The complaint alleged that Hernandez was a resident of New Jersey. It also alleged that each defendant was a corporation organized under New York law and a resident of New York. The court found that the complaint did not allege Hernandez’s citizenship or the principal place of business of either defendant.
Order
The court ordered Hernandez to submit, by March 2, 2020, a letter explaining in full detail the citizenship of the plaintiff and defendants. The order addressed the adequacy of the jurisdictional allegations and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.