Hoffman v. Rattner
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-08839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hoffman v. Rattner, Judge Kaplan ordered plaintiffs to amend their complaint by November 6, 2020, to adequately allege federal jurisdiction or face dismissal or remand.
The plaintiffs, Gabrielle Hoffman and the other plaintiff identified in the caption, were required to amend the complaint by November 6, 2020, or the action would be dismissed or remanded.
What happened
In Hoffman v. Rattner, the court found that the complaint did not adequately allege the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, including the citizenship of one or more individuals.
The court gave the plaintiffs until November 6, 2020, to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges subject-matter jurisdiction. If they did not do so, the action would be dismissed or remanded.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued this conditional order on October 28, 2020. The order did not itself dismiss or remand the action.
The detailed version
- Hoffman v. Rattner · No. 1:20-cv-08839
- Lewis Kaplan
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs sued Brett Rattner. The complaint invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Kaplan concluded that the complaint failed adequately to allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order stated that the complaint may have failed, among other things, to adequately allege the citizenship of one or more natural persons. The order cited Sun Printing & Publishing Ass’n v. Edwards and Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc. regarding jurisdictional allegations.
Ruling
The court gave the plaintiffs until November 6, 2020, to file an amended complaint adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. If they did not file such an amended complaint by that date, the action would be dismissed or remanded. The opinion text does not state that the action was actually dismissed or remanded at that time.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.