Roberts v. Gitelis

Background

Louis Roberts brought this action against Justin Gitelis and Michael Gitelis. The original complaint appeared to rely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states, but it did not state the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction as required by Rule 8(a)(1) or properly plead the parties’ citizenship.

The court ordered Roberts to amend the complaint. In his amended complaint, Roberts invoked Section 1332 and alleged that “the parties are citizens of different states.” He also alleged that he maintained an office and residence in New York and that the defendants resided in Illinois. The court held that these allegations were insufficient because a party’s residence does not establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes; citizenship depends on domicile.

Order

The court noted that leave to correct a technical defect may be freely given when the record supports a factual basis for diversity jurisdiction. It therefore gave Roberts one final opportunity to amend his complaint and properly allege the citizenship of each party. The deadline was December 4, 2020. The court stated that if Roberts did not file an amended complaint actually establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by that date, it would dismiss the case without prejudice and without further notice.

The order did not decide the underlying dispute between Roberts and the defendants. It addressed only whether the complaint adequately established the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.