Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2021

Diamond v. SLD 500 LLC

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:21-cv-02604
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Warren Diamond v. Scott Diamond, Judge Castel gave plaintiffs 30 days to allege citizenship or face dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs must provide adequate citizenship allegations within 30 days. If they do not amend the complaint, the action will be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction; the order therefore affects the continued ability of all parties to litigate in federal court.

What happened

In Warren Diamond and Faith Diamond, as trustee of the Diamond Trust, v. Scott Diamond and 500 SLD, LLC, the court questioned whether it had power to hear the case in federal court.

The complaint relied on the rule allowing federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states. It described the plaintiffs as Florida residents and Scott Diamond as a New Jersey resident, but the court explained that residence is not the same as citizenship for this purpose. The complaint did not adequately allege the parties’ citizenship.

Judge P. Castel ordered the plaintiff to amend the complaint within 30 days. If the complaint is not amended, the action will be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Diamond v. SLD 500 LLC · No. 1:21-cv-02604
Judge
P. Castel
Date
Mar. 26, 2021

Background

The complaint asserted federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That statute allows a federal court to hear certain civil cases between citizens of different states, provided the statutory requirements are met.

The complaint alleged that Warren Diamond and Faith Diamond were residents of Florida and that Scott Diamond was a resident of New Jersey. It also stated that the parties were completely diverse in citizenship. The court explained that a person’s residence does not necessarily establish the person’s citizenship, which depends on domicile—the person’s true, fixed home and principal establishment.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege the citizenship of the parties. The opinion does not identify any additional citizenship allegation for 500 SLD, LLC, and the court stated generally that the complaint failed to adequately allege the citizenship of either party.

Ruling

Judge P. Castel ordered the plaintiff to amend the complaint within 30 days. The order states that the action will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the complaint is not amended. The order did not itself dismiss the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.