Perez v. Green
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-09289
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perez v. Green, Judge Briccetti ordered Perez’s lawyer to clarify his permanent-resident status so the court could determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.
Roque Perez and his counsel, who were required to provide information about Perez’s lawful permanent-resident status; the defendants and the case’s jurisdiction were also affected because the court needed that information to determine whether the action could proceed in federal court.
What happened
Perez v. Green involves Roque Perez’s claim against Lester W. Green, Edwardo J. Justiniano, Guillermo J. Soraire, and Luis R. Soraire. Perez relied on diversity of citizenship, alleging that he is a citizen of Mexico who resides in New York and that the defendants are New York citizens.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction generally requires every plaintiff to be from a different state or country than every defendant. It also noted that this type of jurisdiction may not exist when a foreign citizen is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and lives in the same state as the defendants.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered Perez’s lawyer to submit a letter by November 13, 2020, stating whether Perez is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, without disclosing his immigration status. The order did not decide whether the court ultimately has jurisdiction over the case.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Green · No. 7:20-cv-09289
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 6, 2020
Background
Roque Perez brought the action against Lester W. Green, Edwardo J. Justiniano, Guillermo J. Soraire, and Luis R. Soraire. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It alleged that Perez is a citizen of the Republic of Mexico and resides in Middletown, New York, and that all four defendants are citizens of New York.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state or country from each defendant. The court also explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) does not provide jurisdiction for a dispute between a state citizen and a foreign citizen who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and domiciled in the same state as the state citizen.
The complaint did not state whether Perez was lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. The court therefore required additional information before determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.
Order
The court ordered Perez’s counsel to submit, by November 13, 2020, a letter stating whether Perez is lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The letter was not to disclose Perez’s immigration status. The opinion does not state a final ruling on subject matter jurisdiction or the merits of Perez’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.