Collins v. Holguin
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-05944
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Collins v. Holguin, Judge Swain ordered the defendant to provide facts supporting federal jurisdiction or explain why the case should not be dismissed.
The parties to the action are affected because the court required the defendant to provide additional jurisdictional allegations or explain why the action should not be dismissed.
What happened
Collins v. Holguin concerns whether the complaint adequately showed that the federal court had authority to hear the case based on the parties' citizenship.
The complaint relied on diversity jurisdiction but did not state the plaintiff's or Caroline Acevedo Holguin's state citizenship. It also did not state Fox Car Rental's state of incorporation or principal place of business. The court explained that residence alone is not enough to establish citizenship for this purpose.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the defendant to file and serve a supplement by August 17, 2020, providing allegations sufficient to show federal jurisdiction or explaining in writing why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Collins v. Holguin · No. 1:20-cv-05944
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
The action began with a notice of removal filed on July 30, 2020, and was later transferred to Judge Swain. The court reviewed the complaint to determine whether it established subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court's legal authority to hear the case.
The complaint asserted diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court found that it did not allege the state citizenship of Charles Collins or Caroline Acevedo Holguin. It also did not allege Fox Car Rental's state of incorporation or principal place of business. The court explained that stating where the parties reside is not enough to establish citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. For a corporation, citizenship includes both the state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business.
Order
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal if the court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not make that determination or dismiss the action at this stage.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the defendant to file and serve, by August 17, 2020, a supplement to the complaint containing allegations sufficient to demonstrate a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, the defendant had to show cause in writing—explain why—the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.