Hyman v. Fabbri
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-10506
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hyman v. Fabbri, Judge Torres ordered Defendant to explain whether diversity jurisdiction existed when the case began.
Andrew Fabbri must provide information about his domicile and the basis for federal jurisdiction by June 8, 2022. The order also postponed the case-management conference affecting both parties.
What happened
In Hyman v. Fabbri, Sydney Hyman sued Andrew Fabbri under state law and sought more than $75,000. The case was in federal court based only on diversity jurisdiction, which requires the parties to have been citizens of different states when the lawsuit began.
The court noted that Hyman alleged she was a New York citizen, but Fabbri’s filing did not say he was a New Jersey citizen when Hyman filed the original complaint on September 6, 2019. The court therefore required Fabbri to provide information about his state of domicile at that time.
Judge Torres ordered Fabbri to file a letter explaining the basis for federal jurisdiction by June 8, 2022. She also postponed the scheduled case-management conference indefinitely. The order did not decide the claims’ merits or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Hyman v. Fabbri · No. 1:19-cv-10506
- Analisa Torres
- June 3, 2022
Background
Sydney Hyman brought state-law claims against Andrew Fabbri and sought damages exceeding $75,000. The case was removed to federal court. Because the action raised no federal claims, the court stated that its subject-matter jurisdiction—the power to hear the case—depended on diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Jurisdictional Issue
The court explained that, in a case removed based on diversity, the parties must have been citizens of different states both when the case was removed and when the state-court complaint was filed. For an individual, citizenship depends on domicile: the person’s fixed home and principal establishment, together with the intention to return there when absent.
Hyman alleged that she was a New York citizen when the complaint was filed. Fabbri’s notice of removal stated that he was alleged to have leased or resided at a New York address and was a citizen of New Jersey. But the notice did not state that Fabbri was a New Jersey citizen when the initial complaint was filed on September 6, 2019.
Order
The court ordered Fabbri to file, by June 8, 2022, a letter explaining the basis for federal jurisdiction, specifically addressing his state of domicile when the initial complaint was filed. The court also adjourned the June 8 case-management conference indefinitely. The opinion did not rule on the underlying state-law claims or dismiss the action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.